12-10-19 Council/Manager Agenda
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Pages
1. Downtown Study Update 2-60
2. Highway 55 BRT Discussion 61-63
3. Employee Handbook Updates Discussion 64-65
4. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: City Council December 17, 2019, City Council
January 7, and Council/Manager January 14, 2020
65-70
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the
Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general
directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend
Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by
invitation of the City Council.
December 10, 2019 – Immediately
following HRA Work Session
Council Conference Room
Golden Valley City Hall
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
December 10, 2019
Agenda Item
1. Downtown Study Update
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
In April of 2019, the City Council directed staff to finalize a scope of work and enter into a contract with
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) to conduct Phase II of the City’s ongoing Downtown Study. Phase
I was carried out by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) in 2018; Phase III – the final phase – is anticipated in
the first half of 2020.
Background
The report generated by ULI at the conclusion of Phase I recommended that the City focus its attention
on the four quadrants surrounding Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road, look at ways to better
connect the downtown to the Luce Line Regional Trail, and begin to explore additional uses that could
bring activity and energy to the area.
HKGi began working on Phase II in June. Initial steps involved gathering and mapping data to
understand the issues and opportunities in the downtown, meeting with staff to discuss past initiatives
and concepts for future redevelopment, contacting key property owners and stakeholders to discuss
options, and holding a community open house to seek feedback on possible redevelopment scenarios
for key parcels.
HKGi also worked concurrently with Hennepin County Active Living to gather information about bicycle
and pedestrian use and preferences in the downtown. A separate report is being finalized and will
provide additional context for the Phase II work.
Next Steps
The City Council is being offered a preview of the findings from the open house and the draft product
from Phase II. HKGi staff will be at the meeting to discuss what has emerged as consensus around the
redevelopment scenarios and discuss what steps are likely needed to carry out Phase III and complete
a small area plan that could eventually be adopted by the City Council.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Not applicable
Council/Manager Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
December 10, 2019
2
Supporting Documents
Open House Comments Received on October 21, 2019 (4 pages)
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report (53 pages)
Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II
Open House 10-21-2019
Comments Received
1
Highlights of Comments Received
Comments were received from open house attendees via sticky notes placed on information boards as
well as comment cards. From these comments, we have identified the following key concerns and
preferences expressed at the open house:
SW quadrant - support for street improvements (safer, more walkable), support for attracting
additional commercial businesses (grocery, pharmacy), support for redevelopment, concerns
about Wisconsin Ave/Hwy 55 intersection traffic movements.
NE quadrant – support for improving walking environment/network, concerns about new
streets/preference for pedestrian only streets, concerns about potential changes to the library,
support for adding public outdoor spaces, support for adding residential in downtown.
NW quadrant - no major concerns were identified for the proposed concepts and support was
expressed for residential and office development in this area.
Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities – some concerns about relocating existing uses
in the NE quadrant, such as civic, post office, library, McDonald’s.
Active Transportation Opportunities – concern about safety of pedestrian/bike crossings of
Hwy 55 and Winnetka Ave.
SW Quadrant Comments
What do you like about these concepts?
Grocery Store Concept! Drug Store.
Grocery Store, Drug Store, Get rid of strip mall.
GV got rid of 2 grocery stores years ago. Not enough room for a regular size one and parking – it
would need to be very small.
Eliminate the ugly shopping center!
Grocery Store. Prefer Concept A. Like parking safe and clear sight lines.
Do not agree with tearing down the shopping center and forcing existing businesses out.
What do you think should be changed about these concepts?
Where is our main street? Where will anyone walk?
Simple near-term fix, down cast lights, aesthetics, screening.
Avoid U-turns at Golden Valley Road and Winnetka.
Access corridor at Wesley Commons Drive.
Should be the first thing to go! Grocery store in its place.
No more high rises or multi/apartments. The plan is too extensive.
What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown?
Include food retail. Services for bus transit.
Use the old Park Nicollet for grocery store.
Downtown is for people 1st, Cars 2nd.
Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II
Open House 10-21-2019
Comments Received
2
Need the Wells Fargo Bank. Concerned about losing drive-thrus.
Concept A Comments
Highway 55 and Wisconsin Ave intersection – consider priority movement and sight lines.
Concept B Comments
Wisconsin Ave - 30 mph speed limit, private drive access.
New residential, grocery, recessed parking.
NE Quadrant Comments
What do you like about these concepts?
More residential more commercial is good. Downtown should be busy and crowded.
More residential and hidden parking. New ped/bike paths without street.
Like the idea of a trail connection to Luce Line and 10th, but not the location. Cars currently whip
around the corner, and we never like crossing there currently with our kids on bikes.
What do you think should be changed about these concepts?
Make “new street” in Concept C pedestrian only.
Don’t rebuild library.
Don’t move library like in Concept A.
Didn’t we remodel the library a few years ago?
Library visitors have to cross a street between the parking lot and building? Or is it a pedestrian
only “street”?
Calvary Co-Op residents would like a mid-block crosswalk.
Like Concept A. Like residential by library and City Hall. Don’t move library or City Hall or police.
I would like walking trail connection from City Hall to library.
What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown?
N-S bike/walk corridor is good idea.
Nice to have park/lounge areas on the creek. Currently very little creek access.
Consider gravel pit on SW quad of Winnetka and 55 for city public works buildings.
Separate bike+ped=good. Together=danger.
Keep Community Festival and gathering space as central as possible – as close to 55 and
Winnetka intersection.
With the proposal for all commercial and multi-housing, where is the traffic study?
In the designs, remember the elderly.
Keep the library where it is.
More dining options with outdoor space.
Don’t we have enough rental buildings?!?
City Hall/Library combined building. Great idea!
Mixed/shared parking w/ Calvary Church.
Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II
Open House 10-21-2019
Comments Received
3
NW Quadrant Comments
What do you like about these concepts?
Trail connection to Luce Line is basically already a trail anyway. I use it. Just make it a maintained
trail.
Concept B is better – private yard areas providing sense of community – yet safety that
residents can see it. Nice to have residential by creek.
Trash/recycling bins on Luce Line trail – please.
More residential and small offices.
What do you think should be changed about these concepts?
I would prefer 3-4 story office building with more green space and smaller footprint.
What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown?
No comments.
Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities Comments
Keep City Hall and Post Office and Police where they are – and library and Motor Vehicle
Licensing in downtown.
The City’s trucks could be moved elsewhere – but the other City buildings bring residents to
downtown.
Grocery Store is great!
Make 3A parking lot (adjacent to Luce Line Trail) into park.
Build creek park access/benches. Currently there is no creek access.
Why move a successful business – tax base – E.? (McDonald’s)
Library should stay in existing quadrant.
Active Transportation Opportunities Comments
Improve the Hwy 55 crossing for bikes and walkers.
Put a tunnel under 55 instead of on Winnetka.
Reduce traffic speed thru out city – 55 on 55 too fast.
Request for better pedestrian crossing of Luce Line along Winnetka. Also request better ped
crossing on Winnetka and Golden Valley road.
General Comments
Crossing 55 from south to goods and services. (Clover leaf addition). Schaper Park.
Affordable housing needs to be in the mix, as we did with Common Bond. Put this front and
center as the residential pieces are considered.
I was so proud of the citizen group that advocated for what is now GV commons (SE quadrant) –
aesthetically pleasing, nice place to invite people to, nice indoor and outdoor spaces to gather,
curved (slowed) parking lots. I wish we could get a broad concept of what we want the whole to
look like, how the 4 quadrants all relate and create a “downtown” that is cohesive and to be
Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II
Open House 10-21-2019
Comments Received
4
proud of. Phase II, per the first poster, is to “establish overall vision and guiding principles” – but
I don’t see those anywhere, so then it’s hard for me to respond to the 4 quadrant “pieces”.
What are we trying to do? What do we want it to be? The more these principles and vision can
be explicit and used to guide the consideration of options, the better.
I so wish the SW quadrant would be redesigned to look nice and be something I’m proud of.
I love Excelsior and Grand and the vision-to-reality of that place. My mom moved there at age
80 and everything was within walking distance or close driving distance. Can we accomplish
something like that here? Requires a grocery store with pharmacy I think.
Consider residents like us – age 60, homeowners, eventually will want to downsize, love GV,
would consider moving into this downtown area if done right.
Are there condos and townhouses in the mix of residential? I have friends who want to move
out of their single family homes in their 60s and say the supply of townhouse options is very low
vs the demand.
I think a priority, before higher density, is the re-development of the strip mall with Ace. It is an
eye-sore and very empty. I heard the owner was given it by his father, how can the city inspire
him to sell? Name the area after his father? There is so much opportunity, but no one will move
in to that place in that condition. I am also worried about New Bohemia. New Bohemia is not
doing well and have closed many restaurants already. If they leave, there will be little reason to
go.
I live in the NW quadrant of GV Road and Winnetka. I moved here to be able to walk to the
library, City Hall, my bank, trails, shops and restaurants. To do so is life threatening? This area
was built for automobiles and truck traffic, not for pedestrians. To build more commercial
without making it safe for pedestrians is crazy. Likewise for extending trails and bike lanes. Close
an area that is free of traffic. Make cars park outside the area to walk in. I am opposed to more
development without changing traffic patterns first.
Healthy and safe. Built in to the lifestyle. Businesses both large and small with incentives to
reinvest in GV. Mixed use areas, gathering places. Accessibility. Library and Historical Society
collaboration would be great! Share physical space.
Leave old shopping center area alone! It gives “flavor” to GV. I’m in Wesley Commons. We’ll
never see the sun with higher development. Enough traffic in the area already without 200 more
units. Our street is private! We pay for it and upkeep. No trail running on it please!
Downtown Study Phase II
COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 1
Contents
Overview…..…………………………………………………………… .……….. 2
Active Transportation Opportunities …………………………………………… 4
Redevelopment And Reinvestment Opportunities…..……………………….. 7
SW Quadrant …………………………………………..…………………….. 9
NE Quadrant …………………………………………..…………………….. 11
NW Quadrant …………………………………………..…………………….. 13
Quadrant Concepts……….…………………...………………………………… 15
SW Quadrant …………………………………………..…………………….. 15
NE Quadrant …………………………………………..…………………….. 20
NW Quadrant …………………………………………..…………………….. 27
Long-Term Vision For Downtown…......……………………………………… 31
Appendix A: Open House Presentation Boards.……………………………… 34
Appendix B: Consultant’s Summary Of Open House ……………………….. 46
Appendix C: Social Media Reach And Engagement ………………………… 51
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 2
Overview
Soliciting public input was a major component of the Golden Valley City Council’s consideration of the
Downtown Study Phase II and before moving forward to Phase III.
Staff solicited input from the community through an online comment form and a public open house
regarding the following areas:
multimodal transportation opportunities through the downtown
redevelopment and reinvestment possibilities
draft concepts of each quadrant of the downtown
To promote the feedback opportunities, the City published four online stories in Oct and Nov 2019 and
two in the Sept/Oct 2019 and Nov/Dec 2019 issues of CityNews.
The City further promoted the comment form and open house through social media posts on Facebook
and Twitter.
Open House
The City hosted a Downtown Study Phase II Open House Oct 21, 2019 at Brookview Golden Valley,
where community members could learn more about the issues and offer input. See Appendix A to view
the open house presentation boards.
Representatives from the City and Hoisington Koegler Group (HKGi), the City’s planning consultant,
were on hand to make presentations on each portion of the study and answer questions from
attendees. The open house presentations were recorded and published to YouTube for later viewing.
See Appendix B for the consultant’s summary of the event.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 3
Downtown Study Phase II Comment Form
To gauge public opinion on the potential future of Golden Valley downtown area, the City asked
residents to watch the recorded presentations from the Oct 28 open house, review design concepts,
and answer questions about the concepts.
The online comment form went live Nov 4. After noting a few social media complaints about the online
comment form being confusing and difficult to understand, staff revised it to include larger cropped
images, including breakout images for each downtown area quadrant instead of one overview image.
The revised form was open Nov 19–Dec 3. Both comment forms asked the same questions and
garnered 58 responses.*
All comments are included as they were received and not corrected for typos or spelling errors.
Social Media Outreach
The City posted information and reminders about the open house and the comment form six times on
Facebook and six times on Twitter between Oct 1, 2019 and Nov 30, 2019. See Appendix C for reach
and engagement details for each post.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 4
Active Transportation Opportunities
Respondents were asked to study the map and indicate which of the potential future trail routes through
downtown they like or don’t like and why. (See complete presentation board in Appendix C.)
Which of the potential future trail routes through the downtown do you like and
why?
No strong preference. I like the purple ones that go through downtown N-S. I personally like C2 because I live on the East
side of Winnetka versus West.
Bike lanes! We need bike lanes
C1 because it will make the "downtown" core more bikeable/walkable and will allow people to experience Basset Creek.
C2 because it is most direct route to the shops and eateries in downtown
They all look like good options. We walk and ride bikes, and would potentially like to use the electric scooters as well
D2 - connects to existing trails and connection to retail, restaurants, and city services.
The purple trail along Basset Creek and the Green along Winnetka - Crossing 55 at Winnetka is a high desire line
a1, a2, d1, d2
None
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 5
C and B, because they improve on bike and pedestrian traffic in this area, go near businesses, and existing crossings
C2 easy access to down town
A1 and A2 - they connect to the Luce Line west of Winnetka. C1 and C2 - nice to bike through the main business area.
D2
Like A1, A2, B, C2. Do not like C1, D1, D2.
A1 - I don't like the way it never takes the bikers really anywhere near the downtown.
I love the light rail connection and wish it would come into downtown a bit more
It depends on future developments. I'd like to be able to ride to a grocery store.
This map is very confusing.
I like all of them, especially A1, C2, and D2. These seem to be the most high traffic areas for pedestrian use.
C1/C2 options both look safe for bikers (less used) and seem to give key access to local businesses or events (farmers
market)
Trail route D and C which allow easier access to the most destinations downtown.
D. We ride our bikes on the Luce Line at least 3-4 times each week from early April through November. Getting traffic off
Pennsylvania is an advantage - I have been hit twice by "errant golf balls". Also away from the Calvary traffic is an
advantage.
Green- keeps bikes away from traffic
C - If you are going to bother with trails, you need to make them go to and through areas people care about. Going around
the outside of downtown makes little sense.
B or C because I don’t like being on the roads
Purple potential trail links
All of them. Nice to have multiple options.
C”, it allows bikers and pedestrians safe passage to either side of downtown without further constriction of traffic.
C", it allows residents on either side of the busy Winnetka Ave to visit either side of Golden Valley's Split Downtown.
Though it begs for a better bridge system to cross Hwy 55 to get to the Community Center.
The bike lanes down Rhode Island and on Winnetka and all of the potential trail links. Anything that can make the area
more accessible to bikes.
Rt C; It goes thru the center and covers both sides
Boone or Rhode Island.
The Green Future Bike Lanes that connect the Luce Line to 55 would be ideal as it is currently a hazardous area to ride
bikes/walk
B and C because it adds safer access to retail locations
D2, it is the most direct path with existing land to use
The C route east of winnetka
Purple line—because it’s on streets that are less busy and wider (or, at least without double traffic lanes)
D2, will interfere less with car traffic
Like the bike lane proposal and the potential trail links. I wish something good to be done to make crossing 55 easier even
at the pedestian bridge.
I would prefer off-road trail options. I think any sharing of the road ie: bike lanes, will not allow families to use the trails.
Also walking trails need to be an option.
It's nearly impossible to understand the map and read the map legend. And this is not a properly structured survey
question.
D. Most accessible.
I like linking the bike trails and added bike lanes.
Any increase in the walkability of downtown is a positive.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 6
Which don’t you like and why?
No strong preference.
I don't dislike any of them, but route B seems the least important.
Don't like any of them... "trail routes" thru the middle of downtown don't make any sense. The ____ Millennials have gone
overboard! and have not considered the needs, and constraints, of senior citizens>
A1 because it is too far out of the way
A and D are too far out of the way
Crossings over 55 should be tunnels, preferably the one at Winnetka so kids can bike to Brookview, and families can bike
safely to events in the park.
I dislike the planned BRT stops on Winnetka and 55.
C1-constructing a tunnel under Winnetka is not cost-effective for the "anticipated" results. Taking a southerly exit from B
to the west part of C1 would be much more cost-effective. Anything along Golden Valley Road (D1 and D2) would greatly
affect driving and not have much benefit for bike trails without adverse impact.
D2 - I like the way this connects to both the east and west existing lanes. It keeps bikes just passing through from clogging
the downtown roads.
None
All look fine.
Not applicable. I think that any and all would be a great improvement.
D2 is not an ideal option - Rhode Island is already congested in the mornings and, with an incredibly long stoplight I could
see a lot of safety concerns and additional congestion
Routes A and B don't actually cross any roads. Traffic calming on Winnetka is needed to allow people to actually bike in
downtown.
I do not like C2 - too much interaction with vehicle traffic. I do not like A - most of Golden Valley is to the east of this area
and there is little residential development in the immediate area of A. It is unlikely to have high value to those of us who
are G.V. residents and ride the Luce Line regularly.
Purple- doesn’t go anywhere
I don't understand the pont of A - it is on teh far edge of town and would seem to make most residents go out of their way
to use it.
I think A is too far west and D is on a busier road. I avoid biking and walking on busy roads
A”, it is only easily accessed for those west of Winnetka and forces the larger population to navigate the busy Winnetka
Ave to shop, eat or visit anything on ghe west side.
A", it forces the larger population on the east side of Winnetka to have to navigate the busy Winnetka Ave to visit
anything or anyone on the west side. It also provides only one option for crossing Hwy 55.
if a question of funding and something had to be left out, I would say the link in A2. The bike lane on Winnetka could be
used to get to area C1.
Other routes circumnavigate the cityto much
Highly disagree with a trail trough private property. Streets are already too narrow.
The sidewalk gaps don't seem to be as helpful as other options
Do not have issues with any of them
C2, it goes through a very busy entrance to the strip mall
Red line—much too crazily busy of a street as is. I think this would be very dangerous.
D1 and C1, it will interfere more with car traffic
I don’t like any trail that is placed on a busy street. Trails and bike lanes should be on side street when ever possible. Bikes
should be separated from car traffic as much as possible
The tunnel seems excessive, if there is a safe crossing - why go to the expense of a tunnel?
Provided there is not an appreciable negative effect to traffic it's all good.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 7
Redevelopment And Reinvestment
Opportunities
Respondents were asked to study the SW, NE, and NW quadrants of the Redevelopment and
Reinvestment Opportunities map and comment on the potential change areas, including their concerns.
The first comment form showed only the combined map below.
Do you have any comments on the potential change areas on the
Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities map?
Please don’t toss out our favorite vendors!
Please keep the iconic Golden Valley shopping center. Granted, it needs some work, but it's such a great landmark.
A grocery store would be wonderful!
in area C the retro shopping mall should be saved. it is of the midcentury era that defines this city. any and all
development should work with this.
If traffic at the 55/winnetka exchange is already horrific during rush hour, how will the addition of more dense housing
effect it?
We don't need to expand City Hall per se... its not that old!!!
Would like a retrofit of Golden Valley Shopping Center to have a more current/updated look.
no strong opinion on this
Would lobe to see the shopping mall area redeveloped! Driving through the parking lot is kind of a nightmare, and biking
along Winnetka in this area is challenging with all the entry/exit points.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 8
I think the City misses an opportunity when it neglects to make Brookview Park a focal point in the planning process.
Downtown needs to fully and seamlessly bridge Brookview with any development across 55. Currently parking lots are the
face of GV when driving through 55, on Winnetka and Rhode Island.
Leave the NE Quadrant alone. Anything but minor changes would adversely affect Calvary Lutheran Church and Center
Cooperative. Right now it is a convenient and quiet area for residents, agencies, and businesses already there.
I like item in 1 - particularly the redevelopment if of the strip mall. it needs updating.
We need more retail in any and all areas of downtown, with more walkability.
What concerns do you have regarding the Redevelopment/Reinvestment
Opportunities map, if any?
The updates will raise the rents of the commercial spaces and drive out some of the businesses we have counted in for
years and years!
My greatest concern is that any new development will look like every other suburban development where everything is
beige with fake brick/stone. We don't need another 50th and France, or Excelsior and Grand. This is a tremendous
opportunity for Golden Valley to create a character all it's own.
Please get more small business/non-chain / no more fast food restaurants
Traffic
Whatever you do, don't you DARE to chase McDonald's from its existing location. It is ideally located and serves a much
needed service. IF you dare mess with McDonalds, you WILL run into a firestorm of opposition!!!!
None.
Need something long lasting, stability.
That they don’t fully integrate or see lesson connect downtown to one of GVs most amazing assets: Brookview Park.
You do not look beyond the borders of the areas being addressed, thereby affecting neighboring businesses and homes.
I would hate to see any public money put into 4 - it abuts the freeway and is far from the "downtown" of Golden Valley.
Some residential is a good idea; too much residential is not. There is a need for affordable housing, not luxury condos.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 9
The revised comment form asked the same questions but broke each quadrant into separate maps to
give respondents a better view of the areas.
SW Quadrant
Do you have any comments on the potential change of the SW Quadrant?
quadrant A seems like such wasted space - love the idea of redeveloping!
There is currently no area to walk along storefronts in Golden Valley. An internal street with zero setbacks or along Golden
Valley Road would help make a true downtown Main street feel.
The Golden Valley Shopping Center needs to be redeveloped. It is an eyesore at the entry to Golden Valley. Taking the
entire SW quadrant and re-developing could help change the whole look of the gateway into Golden Valley. What an
exciting opportunity!
Revamp shopping center
I hope the city entices existing businesses to stay. I'd hate to lose Down in the Valley, for example. Otherwise, that whole
area needs to be revised. It is half empty all the time, and having a town with two strip malls instead of any actual
downtown is sad.
I think it’s time for the shopping center to go. It’s tired and doesn’t match the rest of the Area. I would love a grocery store
Who will be purchasing these buildings? If it's the city/taxpayers, NO!
Since Golden Valley’s “Downtown” is split the western side is in need of an update but it needs to be done so we preserve
the great businesses that make that “Downtown” popular. If it is to be a mix of residential and retail, perhaps the better
approach will allow the businesses to stay at their current rental rates and subsidize the increases with residential
convenience fees for a several year transition
Golden Valley doesn't have a real "Downtown" or a "Downtown Look". redeveloping the SW Quadrant could bring a
better and more community-minded look to the Downtown, with both sides of Winnetka looking upgraded. The plans
showed a mixed use area with residential above retail. If done similarly to Excelsior & Grand or the West End, it could
bring that Downtown feel
Why Not Move this idea closer to 169 around where the strip malls are? Better flow of traffic
Minimize parking area. Add a co-op and increase walking friendly areas
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 10
I like the grocery store. And PLEASE leave the hardware.
Looks appropriate to me.
This area seems to be a total redevelopment opportunity for A+B+C given the poor use of space
We shop at the existing retailers in the SW Quadrant. It seems the biggest benefit of this plan would be modernizing the
space, making it look and function better.
Make sure facilities are accessible for wheelchairs. It would be nice to have accessible, public restrooms that are ADA
accessible and all gender.
No
This spot definitely needs refreshing. Green space would be lovely
Please, please, please consider attracting a grocery store or, better yet, a cooperative
It would great to revitalize the GV shopping center area. Having the New Bohemia restaurant moving in was great, can
new businesses be lured in?
Would like to see grocery store and more restaurants and retail
It would be great to coordinate a redevelopment or reinvigoration of this dated strip mall development type. This is the
face of Golden Valley and it is a strip mall and is not pedestrian friendly.
The Golden Valley Shopping Center is long overdue for redevelopment. I recall Mayor Harris talking about a potential
food coop (like The Wedge) coming there 4 years ago.
I would definately like to see the GV Shopping center redeveloped.
This question assumes a planner level understanding of the maps and language. Do you really want resident input or are
you just saying that you are so city leaders can do what they want?
C is outdated and for a focal point of our city it can be summarized best as meh. Would encourage mixed use
development along the A, B, and C zones.
Reverse the mall. Put storeftonts on GV Road
I find many of the businesses currently located in this location to be convenient
A retrofit of GV Shopping Center is overdue.
Retrofit of GV Shopping enter would be excellent.
What concerns do you have regarding the (SW) map, if any?
Other than the fact that the strip mall looks like it's from 1970, I LOVE all of the local businesses (especially Down in the
Valley & Liquor Barrel - GREAT customer services and local offerings). I'd hate to see them pushed out by a development.
Added commerce requires more dense residential nearby to make it a true destination.
I'd like to see the entire "downtown" area carefully revised, not done in pieces where we end up with more of the same of
what we have. Entice these people to work with us on a general revision to the entire area.
What happens to existing businesses??
How will the crosswalks or bridges be placed/reconstructed to compliment new thinking?
Major concerns are that the businesses in the west side shopping center are "cornerstones" to the community and are why
the community wants access to that side. A drastic remodel/redevelopment would raise rental rates that some may not be
able to bare. If the residential units sold above them were to be made to pay a "Convenience Fee" for a period of time, it
could off-set the rate increases and allow them to slowly adjust to the new rental rates. This would preserve the
Community" that exists there, and that is so heavily patronized by our residents.
Disaster ahead with traffic at 55 and Winnetka
It is not a "user" friendly area.
Parking
The curve in Golden Valley Road is already a traffic hazard. Need to control for that.
There really, really has to be a better connection here to Brookview than existing overpass for pedestrians and bikes. This
is an urgent consideration as 55 is a major hurdle in this area and barrier to success.
My family banks at Wells Fargo and shops at several of the retailers in this quadrant. It’s not clear from the map if they
would be relocated within downtown Golden Valley, or close altogether. We’d be disappointed if they closed.
Making the right improvements that add to the city of GV
That we’ll put more stupid little strip mall-esque buildings there.
I want to make sure that all of the residential housing that is added is not rental-I'd like there to be stability and not a
population that is just temporary. Condos vs. appts.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 11
We dont need DT housing. Dont mess up the small business's. I shop there daily.
I don't want to lose the easy access to the businesses there
Redevelopment would not have a positive effect on the area.
NE Quadrant
Do you have any comments on the potential change of the NE Quadrant?
Would love to see some more local or small restaurants come in - similar to LAT14.
Similar to Golden Valley Drive, this is in area with an opportunity for a more pedestrian feel by significantly reducing
allowable setbacks.
I like the idea of combining City Hall and the library into one building. We use the library a lot and love that it is smaller
than some of the other H.C. libraries.
Better traffic flow
Our downtown needs to NOT be industrial. There is plenty of area elsewhere for that, and over time, I'm certain these
buildings will turn into empty shells.
I think it’s smart to have fewer city buildings if we don’t need them all
Who will be purchasing these buildings? If it's the city/taxpayers, NO!
This section is truly the "Municipal" portion of the city, with so much infrastructure buried in it (e.g. public works water
supply piping, police and fire utilities and facilities and equipment storage) and I think it should stay there to minimize
costs. Sections A &B could certainly use upgrades that provide Police, Fire and Public Works with more state-of-the-art
facilities and space for more community training and education of what they do. Sections C & E could be reconfigured to
allow the library to expand and provide more services to the community and meeting spaces for groups north of Hwy 55.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 12
Dense housing is already over running the area, adding here will create potential issues of traffic and if affordable housing
can possibly bring additional crime
none at this time
The relocation of City Hall, fire and police departments is a taxpayers nightmare. Plus the convenience of having them in
their current locations iw wonderful. They are part of the living community.
The best choice.
renovation urgently needed for Library area and the tie to the river
None
I love the idea of updating the library! It is important to have community space that is beautiful and inviting for all residents
and visitors. I believe the city owns a lot of land in this quadrant - it would be cool for GV to work with the
Dakota/Indigenous leaders and explore the options for giving part of the land back (since it was stolen). I'm not sure how
this could look - but it would be amazing to be part of a city that actually returned stolen land to its original stewards!
Would like to make sure the changes are good for us now as well as looking towards the future
It is nice to have our GV services in one location.
No
It doesn't seem to me that A, B, C or D are in need of work. Save the money.
Want to see retail in this sector
The intersection of Winnetka and GV Road needs a major overhaul. Get rid of the silly and ill suited pillars. I would like to
see green space there but not something that has overgrown shrubbery after a season or two. Provide resources to keep it
looking healthy and if possible, pollinator friendly.
I like the police station, fire station and city hall central to the city in this quadrant
No
A new Fire Department building is needed, let the Police take over the entire public safety facility.
Relocation of Public Safety and Public Works for expansion would be great.
What concerns do you have regarding the (NE) map, if any?
Feels like a bit of a waste to put City Hall at the top right off the bike trail - as local businesses could be a better traffic
driver. I do love the idea of better visibility to the library to the community with a combo City/Hall but worry it would be
the most congested spot - curious what any type of traffic study would say about it.
It would be good to maintain an area for the farmers market.
Same as before, please coordinate all of this to create a real downtown.
I think we need to find the right mix of commercial and residential
Wasn't the Library recently closed for 18 months and remodeled for millions $$$?
My concerns are based on the extreme cost of possibly moving water tower (or making it fit the new surroundings), moving
or building on the associated plumbing for the water tower, and will the land be suitable for residential use since the soils
may have issues from public works refuse and the possible contamination. (i.e. the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. site in St.
Louis Park).
Disaster ahead with traffic at 55 and Winnetka. Before any of this should be done, it needs to be revamped like Hwy 7 and
Louisiana which will take much more tax $
I like having a convenient library. I think running easy access for pedestrians/bikes thru the center would be nice. I don't
feel it is advantages to the taxpayer to waste the dollars in buying out McDonalds. It is actually nice and would be nicer if
there was pedestrian access to them.
Cost of relocating current tenants.
It's concerning that there isn't a plan to include revitalization of the Bassett Creek and surroundings to capitalize on this
strong asset in the downtown area
None
None
This quadrant doesn't need market-driven redevelopment. It should remain municipal
None
I'm not a huge McDonalds fan, but it's probably one of the most successful businesses in GV, so I'm not sure a new
investment" will necessarily be better.
Just hoping for an aesthetically pleasing design for Winnetka/GV Road intersection.
do not move the fire station, police station away from this area. It is central to the community
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 13
No
None.
NW Quadrant
Do you have any comments on the potential change of the NW Quadrant?
Unsure - I've lived here several years and have never visited the spot other than riding through on Luce Line.
The area along the Luce Line is a great opportunity to create a regional attraction (cafe, etc.) that Luce Line riders would
connect with Golden Valley
We bike the Luce Line a lot - all the way to Watertown and sometimes beyond. Some of the other communities have really
nice trailheads - it would be great to see Golden Valley with a trailhead including offstreet vehicle parking, portapots,
drinking water, bike tools & tire air, etc. It is quite a ways on the trail before another community with restaurants close to
the trail. This could be a huge benefit to G.V.
Better mixed use, traffic flow
Same as other quad - move away from industrial
Who will be purchasing these buildings? If it's the city/taxpayers, NO!
Possibly a great location for a Single Story Townhome Association, that would provide the aging members of the
community another option to down-size and stay in the city they love and,grocery store/market which this side of the city
is needing.
Move this idea to the left where the strip malls are. They are run down eyesores
Like the addition of trailhead additon.
sounds fine.
Good for non retail
Definitely agree with the need for a trailhead in this area
None
It seems this area would have mixed use opportunity. I think it's important to have affordable housing options and free
parking options for visitors to the shops and restaurants. It would also be great to have community innovation/incubator
labs - to support residents in growing their own businesses. Access to public transportation will be important to make sure
residents can get to their jobs and access their social networks.
Make sure there is adequate parking for the trailhead
A trail head is a nice idea
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 14
Would have made a convenient and pleasant high density residential area
I'd much prefer revitalizing this whole area with more retail or restaurants. These types of businesses would be better
place farther away from "main street"
Want to see retail
Not thrilled about a self storage facility on 10th Av. Is there where McKesson was?
No
No Opinion
No comments.
What concerns do you have regarding the (NW) map, if any?
None
Redevelop all of this with a coordinated plan.
Because of the immense amount of buried utilities in this area, is it safe for residential use?
Traffic is already an issue and anything with this will require a big shift on 55
Could area A be developed for affordable housing.
N/A
None
None
No
No
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 15
Quadrant Concepts
Respondents were then asked to study the each quadrant of the map and share their thoughts about
the concepts proposed for them, what they thought should be changed, and what they viewed as the
long-term vision each area.
SW Quadrant Concept A
What do you think about this concept?
Weak on substance relying on eminent domain to give tax breaks and freebies to developers
I like the concept where the shopping center remains.
Absolutely love the grocery store!
I think that we should celebrate the unique layout and character of the existing "mall" buildings, Concept A is my
preferred. If we do something like Concept B (getting rid of the unique, quirky architecture), then GV becomes like every
other soul-less suburb.
I like the concept of adding residential
We do not need any more apartments or condos in this area. We need more nice restaurant options so we don't have to
leave GV to eat.
Prefer Concept A but keep the Wells Fargo instead of erecting new apartments/condos.
Like Concelt A better
Maybe a Trader Joe’s? Like the smaller grocery store concept.
Not impressed. Seem to be replacing dull with dull. Not much green space. New buildings and materials seem outdated.
Do not try to make the SW Quadrant like the SE Quadrant. The cost of development with related higher leasing/rental
costs would not benefit downtown Golden Valley. Businesses need to have a reasonable place for business without high
lease/rent rates due to being "upgraded and redeveloped".
Again, would love to take care of historical local businesses - Down in the Valley, Liquor Barrel..etc. but love the idea of a
refresh. A local grocery store besides the incredibly outdated Cub would be welcomed!
Unfriendly to pedestrians and bikers. This appears to be an unpleasant place to be outside of a car.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 16
More AFFORDABLE residential units are a great idea! Especially in this area with easy access to public transportation. And
a grocery store next door would be a huge bonus. I don't think reconfiguring the shopping center is enough - it needs to
be torn down.
Too much residential with poor traffic configuration
It sucks. We need to get away from strip malls
It’s ok, but prefer the others
Too many apartment buildings in GV already.
As I mentioned above, this concept is a good one only if it is designed to preserve the current business mix and if the
grocery store is the product of a stable and growth minded vendor.
A grocery store or better a co-op would be a great investment in the community.
Doable but paying for relocating Wells Fargo.......
100-120 new units would overload Golden Valley Road
I think the residential area is a good use, other areas could use some help
Don’t like the removal of Wells Fargo as we bank there. Unless the grocery store is Lunds & Byerlys, a co-op, or Kowalski’s,
I won’t shop there.
Housing is a really big concern - could we build more units on top of the stores in the GV shopping mall?
I like it, it would be good to have another grocery option in town
Do we need more housing here?
Excellent ideas
I like the addition of a grocery store
Love grocery store
Love the idea of integrating a grocery store and higher density residential. This makes complete sense. I just wish the
existing stripmall could be completely changed as it is an eye sore and dated development style. It is the face of the city
as most people see it from 55 and should be treated as such.
Keep strip mall but smaller. Would like to keep hardware store auto supply store, would be nice to add a couple more
restaurants especially none chains
I like it but will Wells Fargo relocate and still have a presence in GV?
There are many variables that go into making decisions about a given concept - important considerations. So whether we
like" or "don't like" an option is meaningless.
Not bad.
mixed use and reconfiguration of the shopping complex.
I like the grocery store, that's something that is definitely lacking in the immediate area
In my opinion this would be an appropriate change to downtown.
This would be preferred to the redevelopment. Change, but not a lot.
What do you think should be changed about this concept?
Please don’t toss out our favorite vendors!
Any new development should face away from Hwy 55. An ample green buffer between 55 and any development would
be ideal.
Combining the parts of A concept that keep the mall with adding some retail and residential density in Concept B would
be ok. Clearly parking would have to be reconsidered bc you could make a unique pedestrian amenity between the
existing mall and the new ground level retail along 55
better and more thought out green space. this looks like an architect dropped some trees in a plan. there needs to be a
strong concept around the pedestrian experience.
Nothing
Remove residential development--that does not make me want to go there.
Both concepts increase population density and thus traffic in an already busy area.
Materials. So much focus on parking - don’t make that be the focus and what people see first. More green space needed,
perhaps consider micro real estate too.
Leave the strip mall alone. If you want to "upgrade" to look, offer some TIF to the owners without requiring teardown
and rebuilding of the mall.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 17
It should be harder to drive and easier/safer to walk - more like a downtown, less like a shopping center.
Tear down the G.V. Shopping Center and start over.
Drive it out of town with pitchforks? Burn it? Perform an exorcism?
Need significant changes to strip mall
There are 15+ grocery stores within 5 miles.
I think the egress routes and entry points for this section should be re-thought to consider, not only pedestrian traffic, but
how to make it easier for entry/exit from Hwy 55.
Is there another wasy to address parking? Ramp or less parking lot? It seems there is an unecessary amount of parking in
front of the strip mall.
grocery store should be mini-Target or equivalent; there really needs to be a direct tie-in with the Brookview side of 55;
where's the beautification of this piece with native prairies, trees, etc?
It seems like a lot of residential is replacing existing retailers, which makes the space less useful.
Would the grocery store focus on local/sustainable food sources? Could we use more of a global market concept where a
variety of local, small businesses could sell items?
Make larger grocery area like concept B
A park, please
No sure what is meant by reconfigure.
Not sure we need even more residential added. There have been a series of residential already put up up and down 55
Redevelop or reinvigorate the strip mall area. There could be a more commercial density and it could be much more
pedestrian friendly.
Wheres the bank going? Thats a busy bank.
Do we really need more apartment buildings? It seems like the area would be saturated. I'd rather see businesses
located there.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 18
SW Quadrant Concept B
What do you think about this concept?
Concept B is better. smaller parking areas with an emphasis on the pedestrian. The precedents are terrible. We should
not be looking at existing suburban models of off tan colors. We need to have a bolder more progressive vision for the
architecture of our community.
I like the mixed use approach of Concept B. Gives the area a more urban feel while also adding restaurants and
pedestrian opportunities.
I like both. I like concept B slightly better, with the residential. Really like the idea of a Fresh Thyme, Sprouts, or Coop
Grocery store is great, and I like the courtyards in concept B.
I do not like the mixed use at all.
There appears to be more sidewalks, and small setbacks along Winnetka.
I like this better than Concept A. High Density, affordable housing on this site makes a lot of sense. Close to public
transportation. Close to a new grocery store. Close to retail.
Better use of shopping center area but concerned about congestion with too much residential space
Moving towards biz, more for the community to enjoy, green space.
I like this
LUV IT
See comments in Concept A
This concept, like the other, provides for a community/village feel, it would be reasonable to expect the facade of the
buildings to look like the section east of Winnetka. The same concerns for preserving the current business mix, that is
patronized by so many of Golden Valley's resident, exist.
Like the grocery store idea but still doesn't consider the traffic of Winnetka and 55
You're removing too much shoping from GV
Good concept.
better than concept A, but looks very crowded, like access by car/bike/pedestrian will be tough
Don’t like the removal of Wells Fargo as we bank there. Unless the grocery store is Lunds & Byerlys, a co-op, or Kowalski’s,
I won’t shop there. I prefer the location of residential in Concept A.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 19
It would be cool to have a co-working space for people who own small businesses and/or work from home (e.g. the
Coven).
More downtown residence would be good
Makes sense as well
I prefer this over Concept A. Still don't love more residential, but like this paired with the expanded retail, which will be a
greater draw.
Like other better. Too much housing in plan
Better than A.
Grocery store will be welcome. Updating and improving the visual appeal of the strip mall is needed so glad that is being
considered.
Hate it. Just stop.
Like this more than A. like the parking w/ courtyard above.
I greatly dislike this concept
Too much change.
There is plenty of residential/retail in GV already.
What do you think should be changed about this concept?
too many apartments in B
Concept B is the better of the two concepts, but there is perhaps too much residential.
Is the parking in the residential enough for all the units? It seems they continue to build without adequate tenant
parking let alone guest parking - would depend if it's apartments or single family homes.
The added "street" should have storefronts all along it with minimal setbacks. Sidewalks along the highway 55 side of the
retail are useless.
Do what you can to make this look and feel like a real, old school, downtown. Make it walkable, make it have parking.
Do not make it feel too closed in. I worry about a wall of retail facing outward to the busy highway. You get a little sense
of that in St. Louis Park where those areas are just not filling up and keeping businesses. There is nothing like having two
sides of a street lined with biz - there is a reason it has worked for hundreds of years.
Just need to make sure parking works. The grocery store at west end has a crazy parking lot. This feels it could be similar
Perhaps a skyway system that would allow the residents in these developments to get to the retail locations easily, even
in bad/cold weather. Another feature that would allow for a "Convenience Fee" that off-sets the rental rates for the
community businesses.
Your retail only allows for residential customers....No parking. Which leads to social situations requiring more police
work.
needs a direct/better tie to Brookview; more pedestrian access; more natural areas
Again, seems like a lot of residential is replacing retail, making it less useful.
What resources are in place to help renters in GV to become home owners (if this is desired by the individual)?
Exiting commercial businesses in GV mall would probably permanently relocate, and potentially out of GV
No more large-scale apartment buildings! Housing doesn't have to be massive, ugly, and bereft of green space.
Hope you don’t price out classic places like Down in the Valley.
The residential adjacent the ground level retail adjacent highway 55 would be better used for more commercial or
alternately, have the commercial be more dense against 55.
Not crazy about residential on Hwy 55.
We lose the convenient businesses with more apartment building
Less residential/commercial. Already enough high rise housing along 394.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 20
NE Quadrant Concept A
What do you think about this concept?
Why can’t we have brave architecture!? Why so much more of this rubbish that surrounds Uptown Minneapolis and St.
Louis Park!?
Accentuating and allowing access to the creek.
minimized and smaller parking is great. but it still feels parking heavy
Don't you dare move McDonald's out of its present location, or you will be sorry when the opposition rears it's head.
Like Concept A the best
that the residences are off in a corner away from retail. I like the bike and walkway example.
Nothing.
Don't like the additional appts but if have to choose, concept A
I Don't.
I prefer A as it utilizes current building and will not cost nearly as much as the other concepts. However, it down allow for
more housing without overwhelming the area with lots of apartments.
I like the residential more than the commercial here
I like the added residential and bike/walk pathway.
A large portion of these housing units need to be affordable. It makes sense to move the public works building to a space
that does not have some of the amenities inherent to this area.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 21
Too much residential with poor traffic flow/congestion
Nothing.
Seems like a good use of funds
This works for me
The residential offerings here, by sheer numbers, implies high density rentals or lower cost condos which may put stress on
the area with added traffic, parking needs and pedestrian interaction/safety.
I like it. Practical. Park areas and a place for outdooor gathering such as the farm market which it a friendly place
Like it. Spreads housing density.
Fine with the exception of the northern residential 40-50 units
No comment
It’s good, but I like B better
Nope. Our public buildings aren’t that old. This is wasteful.
I like this option least.
Too much housing
The additional higher density residential is ideal here.
Where will the farmers market be
It's OK.
This survey is flat out embarrassing in its incompetence.
Eheres the city moving to? Needs to be answered first.
Where does public works go?
I like locating the apartment buildings (IF WE MUST HAVE THEM) in this area over replacing businesses near the strip mall
Not a lot of improvement.
Doesn't address enough changes needed.
What do you think should be changed about this concept?
All of it. Your mood boards look dated and do not inspire. Please don’t fill out beautiful city with this faux facade garbage
buildings
Cool it with the beige/brick aesthetic, seriously.
I think a plaza more internal to the development would be far more desirable. Winnetka will always be an unfriendly, fast
corridor and not someplace to linger.
All developments should be forced to put parking below grade. This would transform this plan and make for a precedent
setting development in the suburbs. The housing examples shown are terrible and look like the uninspired low rise housing
that is scaring our suburban landscapes.
Keep the existing city buildings. That is the most efficient use of our tax dollars.
Imagine the traffice nightmares if we increased both retail/commercial and housing. It is already a busy area.
less apartments
No new residential. Leave the NE Quadrant alone. Anything but minor changes would adversely affect Calvary Lutheran
Church and Center Cooperative. Right now it is a convenient and quiet area for residents, agencies, and businesses already
there.
Again, stop light at Rhode Island is already long and congested and I worry this could make it worse without adequate
adjustments and the influx of new residents inevitably heading downtown.
The area along Winnetka should be improved as well - what is the realistic parking need at City Hall?
Everything. Look, we need to make this a town we WANT to live in folks - having a bunch of parking lots and yet MORE
appartments is not helping the existing residents. I would change this plan to not exist.
Keep the number of housing units lower, consider a mix of 1st-Time and Empty-Nest options. All if, and only if, the soils
test out to show no potential for contamination surfacing from the site that would endanger residents.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 22
nothing
The entire northern area, should be the library, Bassett Creek and restored area surrounding the creek and library - scrap
the northern 40-50 residential units and tie to your asset, the river,
No comment
The library is not updated
Scale down the residential units.
Everything
Less housing
Keep MacDonalds. Hate to admit how often I go there
N/A
Don't bother, Concept B is better.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 23
NE Quadrant Concept B
What do you think about this concept?
I like the additional commercial space in concept B.
I like that B and C celebrate Bassett Creek. There is currently no real expression of it that is truly publicly accessible.
Love the plaza and small commercial spaces connected by a bike path - very interesting proposal!
I like the added commercial and residential.
I would prefer to have police and fire moved out of this area.
City buildings should be more central- park once and walk to businesses. Too much residential space
Much better. Move this all to be a place where people want to be. Shops, green space, preserve the best community parts
like the library an move the rest.
Fine, but what’s it going to cost the taxpayers?
No. I don't want my taxes to increase for more housing.
Police, City and Fire take a back seat and become less prominent and doesn't help establish the village feel.
Retail/Commercial will further fragment the community gathering space and will have a further negative impact on the
small shopping center on the west side of Winnetka.
Awful idea, adding that much dense housing will cause issues with schools, and just overall crowdedness
This concept has potential depending on the type of housing and commercial options. Golden Valley is in need of
affordable housing. The number of units proposed in this plan could include mixed housing (emphasis on affordable
housing).
Too expensive and diruptive to all with no real advantage except to the contractors.
Like this the best.no grocery store. Definitely needed.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 24
Much, much better than A, the mixed use is great
No comment
Love it, the city campus is codenced
I like having a larger municipal presence.
Yuck, except for the McDonald’s part.
I like the additional commercial and like putting all the city buildings together and using up less prime real estate.
Much prefer mix of use especially retail
Much nicer than scheme B. Not sure if the expense of moving city hall is worth it though.
Expensive and unnecessary to move city buildings
It's OK
Ugh. Why?
Like Concept B more than A. The commercial space would make this area more desirable.
The current facilities seem adequate, this seems like a waste of resources.
Unsure that police and fire would have enough room to grow.
Not enough room for Public safety.
What do you think should be changed about this concept?
I think Concept B could pose a safety issue with people having to cross a street to get from the parking lot to the library.
B and C require way too much public money and are not necessary. Golden Valley has a great residential feel and taxes are
not completely out not control -- yet. Lets keep it that way so that existing residents are not priced out of their own homes.
I think concept A doesn't have enough commercial space, and concept C has too much residential. Concept B has a good
blend.
Looks like adequate parking while balancing a lot of green space - would be curious again on the residential parking
allotment- is it enough for residents/guests so we avoid getting into a congested position where no one can park at
businesses or visit residents?
Compare the setbacks, commercial space size, and parking to a real downtown (i.e., Robbinsdale). This concept could be
improved by emulating areas which have very high value/square foot rather than areas with much lower value/square foot.
I would encourage sufficent public parking while considering whether we can create a plaza that is large enough and open
enough for events, whether farmer's market, music, or just people to gather. I can't tell whether we're killing that given
teh design. Maybe again we should rethink how much more we need to invest in apartment space in this city. We seem to
have boomed with it already.
It seems like library and city hall end up with the best views of the creek. Would be great to have a restaurant and or park
area for people to enjoy. Maybe this is where the Trailhead area is?
Bring the City Hall to the southwest portion of the quadrant, establishing a City presence as seen in many established cities.
Allow Police and Fire to expand and take the space shown in the northeast corner, by themselves.
Adding more green space.
leave the fire and police station alone. Same withlibrary and city hall
Needs better access, more space for creek and surrounding landscape and library, much, much more expanded pedestrian
access to the area
No comment
Do *not* take away the lovely green space by the library.
The side streets off of winnetka will be problematic.
We need more single level “patio” type housing with no interior or exterior steps. That stuff build on Winnetka and 27th is
useless for seniors. Preserve as much green space as possible and create walking trails
What is the taxpayer funded cost to relocate the public service buildings?
Do we really need brand new fire, police, and city hall?
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 25
NE Quadrant Concept C
What do you think about this concept?
Don't like that it's missing the plaza or community space. Feels like a residential grab.
I think the plaza is a great idea.
I love it! What an amazing improvement this will be for Golden Valley as long as it includes a high % of affordable
residential units that are not all congregated in the same building.
No.
I like smaller government buildings
LUV IT
No. Change for change sake doesn't always work.
I would replace the Commercial development in the southwest corner with Police and Fire. And change the total 300 units
of Residential to Condominiums, or 200 units of rentals
This would be my 2nd choice of plans.
not muvh
Better than A, not better than B; like the city hall, library consolidation
No comment
No.
Same comments as above.
I like the 2nd best
Like this too
City Hall and library combined to one building sounds good.
Im not paying for this.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 26
Like more than A due to mixed use of the space and the increased density.
It seems like a big effort for little return
Looks great.
This would be great.
What do you think should be changed about this concept?
Prefer the option with a bit less residential and more business space (Option B)
As with concept B, separated large commercial buildings with large setbacks and lots of parking are not what the market
values.
Fire and police kept central is still a good idea, and while I appreciate the library and city hall in one concept, I think having
a huge chunk of central space facing Winnetka be parking is a tragic mistake.
Might be too much Housing. If these are low end apartments then the area will become run down in a short time
I still think offering Commercial spaces here fragments the community and will suffocate the businesses in the strip on the
west side of Winnetka.
Adding more green space.
I want City Hall downtown; plus where do you plan to move the firestation? And with the much residnetial how far away
do you plane to move the police
Needs better access, more space for creek and surrounding landscape much, much more expanded pedestrian access to
the area
No comment
Please leave this quadrant alone.
The side streets off of winnetka will be problematic.
Do not move the police and fire station from tis location.
sufficient parking whether surge or underground/ramp based.
I don't think we need brand new fire, police, and city hall buildings, I think their current locations make sense
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 27
NW Quadrant Concept A
What do you think about this concept?
Change
Accentuating and allowing access to the creek.
I like that Bassett Creek is more celebrated - as long as that is what this is saying
I like adding residential
not a strong opinion on either
The residential component.
I like the idea of the sw quadrant having a small grocery store.
I am ambivalent.
Again, I prefer the concept with the least amount of expense.
Both fine.
No Opinion
Stormwater management is a good idea near the creek.
If we have to take it, ok? This is an odd comparison between A and B. The assumptions about the giant middle area
changing or not are key.
Seems reasonable
Excellent choice of use if the units are not rentals and are feasible for 1st-Time owners or empty-nesters.
Looks fine to me
Residential housing is too concentrated
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 28
this is fine, but doesn't do enough for beautification/restoration/access to Basset Creek and trail
No comment
It would be great to have emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness. And easy access to mental health
resources.
It's better than B
Ok
i don't like this proposal.
Like the increase in higher density housing.
It's OK.
I hope we're not spending money to someone to create this survey. What a waste of city funds it would be.
Why didnt the city buy the McKesson building? Lost oppertunity.
Like the trail connection and residential use.
This seems reasonable
Meh.
What do you think should be changed about this concept?
The architect
A large greenspace,, as in concept A, would be ideal, but it should be a public amenity.
parking goes below grade. more sustainable features. Better architecture
I don’t like the aesthetics of being on the Luce Line trail and seeing parking lots. The substation is ugly enough, and now
that the one business cut down all their trees, the trail would lose the natural landscape aspect.
Way to much housing crammed in to these areas. Tons more traffic.
NW Quadrant would be perfect for additional development as long as you do not force out the businesses already there.
They are part of Golden Valley downtown too.
Too much residential.
Trail connection seems nice but a bit unnecessary
Missed opportunity to allow a destination along the Luce Line.
What can we? The middle area changing is a question - assuming it can't means this is about the only thing you can do,
assuming it can pushes to Plan B.
Is there really a call for this much of an increase in office space?
nothing
I'd say this concept should be scrapped, buildings too close to creek/trail
No comment
I would make it higher density
It shoud be more densily developmed to fully utilize the space.
Sufficient parking for residential units.
Would love to see an off leash dog park
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 29
NW Quadrant Concept B
What do you think about this concept
Concept B gets rid of that eye sore building. I like the additional office space; bring more businesses to GV.
No Opinion
Too much parking for the office buildings.
Prefer this to the other, can't tell whether feasible.
Luv It!
It could be acceptable, depending on the types of units of residential units and the types of office space planned.
This concept might be preferable to concept A, however, I would need to give it more thought.
Hard to have a viable business without parking.
Not sure that we want additional fixes buildings, given the level of congestion already in this area.
this is fine, but doesn't do enough for beautification/restoration/access to Basset Creek and trail
No comment
The residential units are too large.
No comment
I prefer this concept. Better location for residential than some of the other plans.
Prefer this option
Like the increase in higher density housing.
It's OK
Ugh.
Like more than A due to mixed use.
I like this - gives the businesses an upgraded look and feel as well
This would be an improvement on what is currently there.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 30
What do you think should be changed about this concept?
I prefer the apartment configuration of concept B better than that of A.
Narrow 10th avenue to make trail crossings safer.
Look folks, if you are going to push 500-1000 more units on us for apartment living no matter what concept, what's the
point in asking? If you do this, you need to make real changes to require affordable living, and good luck with traffic.
Reduce the number of Residential units to avoid over-crowding.
I would not remove all the businesses
I'd say this concept should be scrapped, buildings too close to creek/trail
No comment
Do not repeat the mistake of allowing the too-large, too close to the street apartment building on Xenia and Laurel.
I would make this quadrant all residential
It shoud be more densily developmed to fully utilize the space.
does this have sufficient parking?
Add an off leash dog park
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 31
Long-Term Vision For Downtown
What do you think the long-term vision should be for the downtown?
A place where old and new can coexist; one where we aren’t taken over by big box stores and fly by night chain stores
A new urbanist haven with plenty of trees and greenspace, where you can bike or walk to get groceries, run errands, dine
out, etc.
more walkability to and within the corridor
we need to flip the suburban model and look to outlining cities like chicago that have dense active pedestrian friendly areas
around their transportation hubs. It should be vibrant and attract millienials and younger generations. if it looks like the
precedents it will be no different then every other suburb in america. uninspired, and cheap architecture. The site should
have design guidelines that are not style based but quality based.
Slim chance of getting the owner of the strip mall to renovate this eyesore!!
Mix of shops and eateries along with residential
We do not need more high-rise condos/apartments...we have too many. Look at what downtown Robbinsdale has done--
it's a mini eat street. Retail, restaurants that people flock to, bakery, coffee shop, hardware, etc.
It isn't a downtown. If you want a downtown, tear everything down on both sides of GV Road and Winnetka and start over
with a pedestrian friendly concept- think downtown Robbinsdale.
Grow businesses (retail, breweries, restaurants)
Not what is proposed. Groceries are being delivered to homes more and more, so why add a grocery store with a massive
parking lot. How about bringing in unique restaurants and boutiques. GV doesn’t seem to have an identity. Perhaps,
consult with the folks who helped create the North Loop.
Go lightly and DO NOT CARRY A BIG STICK.
An area with more of a downtown feel. However, parking remains important as that is the primary way Golden Valley
residents (especially the elderly) get around.
Retail, grocery, residential, walking/or biking friendly
Make it a place that residents want to go to. More activity, more commercial, more entertainment.
Continue to work with the retailers
Love the idea of a more downtown style space for events like the Arts & Music festival or the farmer's market, not sure
that this provides that.
An area that is pleasant to spend time going to multiple stores, sit outside and spend time. It does not need to be easy to
drive in and out of.
A mix of affordable housing, high walkability, connections to the Luce Line, increase in options for public transportation,
better esthetics as one side of the gateway into Golden Valley.
Primiarily commerce. Not industrial, residents if we can support the infrastructure and if they feed to our tax base and to
maintaining the new biz below.
A place to congregate. Could there be a plaza? A splash pad?
Shopping, Coffee Shops, and Residential and Grocery
Again, who will be paying for this?
Make this the area recognized as "Downtown", with a significant city government presence, and utilizing the Courtyards
areas for city festivals, farmer's markets and special events. If the buildings with the Ground Level Retail were kept with a
slightly lower profile than the rest, the Courtyards could be a viewing place for celebratory fireworks that could be done
from Brookview Golf Course!
On the right track but this needs much more infrastructure
We need either a grocery store or co-op and much more affordable housing!
I think you ned more open space and parks. There's no where to recreate ooutside other than walk. UGH!!!!
A space that offers basic amenities (bank, post office, city services, hardware store, coffee shop) and unique/local retailers
and restaurants.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 32
I agree that a mix of residential, grocery/Target/ light retail is needed; however there needs to be innovation in a link to
Brookview both from a pedestrian standpoint (something better than existing overpass) and making this area more natural
e.g., restored prairie)
Long term vision of down town should be a SPACE WHERE EVERY PERSON IS UNDERSTOOD, VALUED, AND GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO THRIVE.
A good mix of commercial and residential. Potentially commercial LL and residential about like some of the downtown
MPLS areas that have recently been done been
Some housing is good. But please preserve set-backs and create green space.
I’d be more enthusiastic about the housing options if we actually had decent bus service. Perhaps with higher densities we
would get it.
More retail and non-chain restaurants. People want new, hip-er restaurants.
Vibrant shopping, eating and entertainment area
The city's goal should be to view this area as the focal point of the city and as such it should focus on increasing density in a
mixed use fashion. There should be more consideration given to how the area is seen from highway 55. There shoudl be
more focus on creating community gathering spaces and making it more pedestrian friendly.
Businesses to which residents may walk and take care of basic errands along with restaurants. Easy entrance / exit from
Hwy 55 and Winnetka. Visually appealing!
More business friendly, not less.
the Winnetka, Golden Valley, 55 area needs to be the focal point of the city.
More businesses - less apartment buildings
Improved possibilities without changing the character.
I think we should look deeper into the options for better architects; the kind with vision and not just dollar signs in their
eyes. Also, where are the plans for low income housing and mixed use buildings?
A new urbanist haven with plenty of trees and greenspace, where you can bike or walk to get groceries, run errands, dine
out, etc.
density, sustainability, vibrancy, diversity, accessibility. we need to desire to be in our downtown. it is currently a
gathering of strip mall type suburban shops.
Put a grocery store in. There's a big lacking of this as the nearest is in plymouth
City government sector
Redesign the fire station so we don't have to worry about where to build a bigger second fire station.
minimal to no change
Community center that includes a water park. Seriously. Like Crystal Cove or the one in Maple Grove.
More green space and family friendly space.
Go lightly and DO NOT CARRY A BIG STICK.
Make it a place that residents want to go to. More activity, more commercial, more entertainment.
Community space with a bit of a 'downtown' feel where you can go to businesses and meet up with the community at local
events (e.g. Pride).
Dense, small commercial buildings which allow small businesses and not just chain stores to create a real downtown that
Golden Valley residents can be proud of.
We need a place for people to enjoy. It needs to drive us to come to it as residents. We have so very little in the way of
shops and good entertainment, we should be encouraging things beyond yet more apartments and parking lots. I'm fine
with police and fire being located centrally - and their space can be integrated with city service buildings of multiple stories
that look nice and integrated into the landscape. Make all these quads harmonize, not be slapped together over 50 years.
Connection to the creek. A place to congregate
The long-term vision should be to develop a site that says community, invites participation from all directions and a
destination for work, family and fun.
Downtown Golden Valley should include a grocery store option, more affordable housing , more green space and bike
lanes.
Keepit cohesive. with lots of green space in nooks and crannies for neghborly interaction.
Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Page 33
Focus should be on bringing the Bassett Creek and restoration out as a gem/asset of Golden Valley as priority, second is
improving pedestrian access, third is improving the library
I think what’s here is fine
Keep the municipal campus, and don't mess with the library or the green space west of it.
Should stay as is, except, perhaps, for the McDonald’s site.
It would be ideal to look at this area primarily as a civic space and then infill with residential and commercial beyond that.
Make this the focal point of the city. The commercial/residential use would be great to have.
Businesses
Weak, late to the party architecture with overpriced commercial spaces that only chain stores and fast food places can
afford. Stop looking at St. Louis Park for your “inspiration”. Dream bigger
With the increase in housing comes the need for an increase in local goods and services. It would be nice if we could be
selective about what businesses occupy the new retail spaces. Preference should be given for affordable grocery stores,
and businesses that serve/appeal to people of all cultures and financial brackets.
Keep the light rail out.
Talk to the folks who’ve created the neighborhoods downtown. GV has much to offer, but all these plans/designs seem
traditional and uninspiring.
Go lightly and DO NOT CARRY A BIG STICK.
It is more removed, so a quieter residential approach makes sense. Could have higher residential density to help support
downtown walkable commerce.
You folks can't add a possible 1000-2000 working individuals in apartments within these 4 areas combined including this
one, plus all the other construction, and expect Winnetka to not become a living hell. You folks failed to bring the light rail
down 55 to accomodate all these people living centrally to GV, and you aren't going to win this battle with bike trails, so
you really can't get good feedback on this stuff without total infrastructure analysis. In the morning, Winnetka is messed
up enough. You can't feed more people down it during rush hour without screwing up the entire town. Time to think of
such things.
Many other problems/issues to deal with first. Do we really need a "downtown"?.
The long-term vision should be consistent with prior visioning. These areas will all have a common theme and look
it would be nice if encouragement fo business other than retail with jobs that paid more than minimum wage were
encouraged. Your concepts have nothing there except to do away with allo of them and put in houseing which will
defintely degrade with time if all the people have is minimum wage.
Mix of housing, retail, and a grocery store.
Vision: How do you tie the Luce Line and Basset Creek to Golden Valley? Make this area into a major trailhead highlighting
the creek and giving access the city, huge restoration of the creek and bringing back a Big Woods remnant too
Plan looks fine
Thank you for gathering input from residents - I know some of the apartment complexes in GV allow outside groups to
conduct "info sessions" on site. Please take advantage of this opportunity to make sure renters have a voice in the decision
making process.
Residential
good spot for residential if the other proposed areas have increased commercial and restaurants.
More focus on high density residential.
I think this area could use a facelift and would be a good spot for apartments if absolutely required
APPENDIX A
Open House Presentation Boards
Page 34
Downtown Study Phase II
City of Golden Valley
Phase IIScheduleStudyOverview
Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II
General Project Schedule
Jun Jul AuG SeP Oct nOV Dec
TASK 1:
Understand Potential
Change Areas
TASK 2:
Explore Site Redevelopment
Scenarios
TASK 3:
Seek Community Input
Task 4:
Prepare Preferred Site
Concepts
MeetInGS
Staff Meeting
Design Charrette
Public Engagement Event
Property Owners/
Stakeholders Meeting
PC or CC Meeting
º»¼º»¼¹
º»¼¹º»¼WinnetkaAve
NQuebecAveNPennsylvania
Ave NWinnetka
Ave NRhode Island Ave NOrklaDrGlenw o
o d
A v e ValdersAve N 10
t h A v e N
Faribault St
Golden
V all
e y D rWisconsin Ave
NRhode
Island Ave NGolden Valley Rd Kelly DrSumter
Ave NCountry
Club Dr Lewis
Rd 55 Study
Area 0 1
00
200 300
FeetDRAFT08/14/
201
9StudyAreaGoldenValley Downtown Study
Phase II 105.9 Acres)Legendº»¼¹
º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼Winnetka Ave NQuebec
Ave NPennsylvania
Ave
NWinnetka Ave
NRhode Island Ave NOrkla Dr
Glenw
o o dAveValdersAveN10thAve
N Faribault St
Golden
V all e
y D rWisconsin Ave NRhode Island Ave NGolden Valley Rd Kelly DrSumter Ave NCountry Club Dr
Lewis Rd 55 Study Area 0 1 00 200 300 Feet DRAFT 08/14/2019Study AreaGolden
Valley Downtown Study Phase
II 105.9 Acres)Welcome!2040 comprehensive update Identified the Downtown West area as one in
need of further study.Downtown West is bounded by Highway 169
and 55,the Luce Line regional trail,and the Golden Valley Country Club.
Downtown Study Phase I Summer 2018 The City worked with a panel of local real
estate,development,and finance experts the MN Urban Land Institute ULI)to begin the downtown study.The Phase I
study resulted in the written report prepared by the ULI.Oct 9,
2018 Summary of the Phase I findings and recommendations
shared with City Council.One of the phase I findings was that the City should
focus on
a smaller core area
within the downtown the four quadrants surrounding Winnetka Ave and Golden Valley
Road.Other recommendations included identification of redevelopment
opportunities,strong market potential,need for improving connectivity into and within downtown,and the need for
public partnership in future redevelopment.
Downtown Study Phase II Focused on establishing an overall vision and guiding principles for preferred
redevelopment,reinvestment and placemaking in the downtown core.Envision
the future of the City Hall campus as buildings age and need to be replaced.Create potential targeted
redevelopment scenarios.Develop a more detailed downtown bike/walk plan to encourage more downtown bicycle and foot traffic
with the addition of bike
and pedestrian facilities.
Downtown Study Phase II
City of Golden Valley
º»¼º»¼¹
º»¼¹º»¼WinnetkaAve NQuebecAveNPennsylvania
Ave NWinnetka
Ave NRhode Island Ave NOrklaDrGlenw o
o d
A v e ValdersAve N 10
t h A v e N
Faribault St
Golden
V all e
y D rWisconsin
Ave NRhode Island
Ave NGolden Valley
Rd Kelly DrSumter
Ave NCountry Club
Dr Lewis Rd
55 0.51:
1 1.02:
1 1.33:
1 2.44:
1 0.71:
1 3.48:
1 2.56:
1 2.88:
1 2.3:
1 0.56:
1 0.
44:1
1.22:
1 0.
81:1
7.48:
1 2.
64:1
1.79:
1 0.
24:1
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/
A N/A
N/A
N/A N/A N/
A
N/A Study Area Building to
Land Value N/A
1
1 - 2.5
2.5 0
1 00 200 300 Feet
DRAFT 08/
14/2019
BuildingtoLand
ValueRatio
Golden
Valley Downtown Study Phase IIBuildingto Land
Value Ratio
º»¼º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼Winnetka AveNQuebec
Ave NPennsylvania Ave NWinnetka Ave NRhode
Island Ave
NOrkla
Dr Glenw
o o d A v
e
Valders
Ave
N
1 0 t h
A v e
N Faribault St Golden V all
e y
D rWisconsin Ave
NRhode Island Ave
NGolden Valley
Rd Kelly DrSumter Ave NCountry Club Dr Lewis
Rd 55
StudyArea01 00200300
FeetXXSPACESXXSPACESParkingSupplyvs. GV Parking Code
DRAFT 08/14/20 1 9Parking
Supply Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase
II Parking
Supply
Future Land Use
Map From 2040
Comprehensive Plan º»¼¹
º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼
Winnetka Ave NQuebec
Ave NPennsylvania Ave
NWinnetka Ave NRhode
Island Ave NOrkla
Dr Glenw o
o d A
v e ValdersAve
N1 0 t
h A v
e N Faribault
St Golden V
all eyDrWisconsinAveNRhodeIsland AveNGoldenValley
Rd Kelly
DrSumter Ave
NCountry Club
Dr Lewis
Rd 55
0.51:
1 1.
02:1 1.33:
1 2.
44:1
0.71:
1 3.
48:1 2.56:
1 2.
88:
1 2.3:
1 0.
56:1 0.44:1
1.
22:1 0.81:1 7.48:1 2.64:1 1.79:
10.24:
1N/AN/A N/AN/A
N/A
N/A N/A N/AN/A
N/A
N/A N/A N/AN/
A N/A N/A Study
Area Building
to
Land Value
N/A 1
1 - 2.5
2.
5 0 1
00
200 300 Feet
DRAFT 08/14/
2019Building to Land Value
RatioGolden
Valley Downtown Study Phase II º»¼
º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>Winnetka
Ave NQuebec
Ave NPennsylvania Ave
NWinnetka Ave
NRhode Island Ave NOrkla Dr
Glenw
o o d A v e
ValdersAve N
1 0 t
h A v
e N Faribault St Golden
V all
eyDrWisconsin
AveNRhodeIsland
Ave NGolden
Valley Rd KellyDrSumter AveNCountryClub Dr
Lewis Rd
55 Study Area Metro Bus StopExisting
Trails and Sidewalks Three Rivers Park
District Existing
Regional
Trail City
Trails & Sidewalks Concrete
Sidewalk (34.1
mi.)
Asphalt Trail (1
6.
2 mi.)Private
Sidewalk or Golf
Cart Trail On-Street
Bikeways
Bikeable Shoulder 0 1 00 200
300 Feet DRAFT 08/
14/20
1 9 Active
Transportation Golden
Valley Downtown Study Phase II
Non-
Motorized Active TransportationFacilitiesº»¼º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>Winnetka Ave
NQuebec
Ave NPennsylvania
AveNWinnetkaAveNRhode
IslandAveNOrkla
Dr Glenw
oodAveValdersAveN
1 0
thAveNFaribault
St Golden V all e y
DrWisconsin
Ave
NRhode Island
Ave NGolden Valley Rd Kelly
DrSumter
Ave
NCountry
Club
Dr Lewis Rd 55
Study Area Metro
Bus Stop Existing Trails and Sidewalks
Three Rivers
Park District Existing
Regional Trail City
Trails &
Sidewalks
Concrete Sidewalk (34.1 mi.)Asphalt Trail (1
6.2
mi.)Private
Sidewalk
or
Downtown Study Phase II
City of Golden Valley
º»¼º»¼¹
º»¼¹º»¼WinnetkaAve NQuebecAveNPennsylvania
Ave NWinnetka
Ave NRhode IslandAve NOrklaDrGlenw o
o d
A v e ValdersAve N 10
t h A v e N
Faribault St
Golden
V all
e y
D rWisconsin
Ave NRhode Island
Ave
NGolden Valley
Rd Kelly DrSumter
Ave NCountry
Club
Dr Lewis
Rd
55 Study
Area Water
Main
City Watermain JWC
Water Main
Abandoned
Private
Main
Private
Hydrant Lead
Storm
Basin
Pond Sedimentation Basin
Wetland
Bioretention Basin Underground Pipe
Chamber
Underground Wet Vault
Storm Channel
Creek Ditch
Swale Spillway
Storm Pipe
Gravity Forcemain
Other Storm
Pipe Draintile Private
or Other
Agency Draintile
Other Agency Storm Private Culvert
Private
Storm Abandoned Pipe Sanitary Main City
Gravity
MCES Forcemain Other
Sanitary Main Private
Sewer
Abandoned Pipe
0100200 300FeetDRAFT
08/14/
20 1 9 Utilities GoldenValleyDowntown Study
Phase II
Utilities º»¼º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼WinnetkaAve
NQuebec Ave NPennsylvania Ave NWinnetka Ave
NRhode Island
Ave
NOrkla Dr
Glenw o
o d
A v e
ValdersAve
N 1
0 t h
A v
e
N Faribault
St
Golden V
all e
y
D rWisconsin Ave
NRhode Island
Ave
NGolden
Valley
Rd
Kelly DrSumter
Ave
NCountry
Club Dr Lewis
Rd
55 Study Area Water
Main
City Watermain JWC
Water Main
Abandoned Private
Main Private
Hydrant Lead
Storm Basin
Pond Sedimentation
Basin Wetland Bioretention
Basin Underground
Pipe Chamber
Underground Wet Vault Storm Channel
Creek
Ditch Swale Spillway Storm Pipe Gravity
Forcemain
Other Storm Pipe
Draintile Private or
Other
Agency Draintile
OtherAgencyStormPrivate CulvertPrivateStorm
Abandoned Pipe
Sanitary Main City Gravity MCESForcemainOther Sanitary
Main Private
Sewer Abandoned Pipe 0 1 00200
300 Feet DRAFT 08/14/20
1 9
Utilities
Golden Valley
Downtown Study Phase
II
Legend º»¼º»¼¹
º»¼¹º»¼Winnetka Ave NQuebec Ave
NPennsylvania Ave NWinnetka Ave NRhode Island Ave
NOrkla Dr Glenw o o d
A v e ValdersAve N
1 0 t
h
A v e N
Faribault St Golden V all
e
y D rWisconsin Ave NRhode Island
Ave NGolden Valley
Rd Kelly DrSumter
Ave NCountry Club
Dr Lewis Rd
55 Study Area Public Tree
Inventory Diameter
4.7in.4.7-10.
9 in.
1 0.9-1 5.9in.1
5.9-
25.7 in.25.7-47.7
in.Flood Hazard Zones Floodway 1 %
Chance of
Flooding
0 1
00 200 300
Feet
DRAFT 08/14/
20 1 9 Public Tree Inventory
and Flood Hazards Golden Valley Downtown Study
Phase II Tree Inventory and Flood
Hazards º»¼º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼
Winnetka Ave NQuebec
Ave
NPennsylvania Ave NWinnetka Ave
NRhode Island Ave NOrkla Dr
Glenw
o o dAveValdersAveN10thAv
e
N Faribault
StGoldenVall eyD
rWisconsin Ave
NRhode Island AveNGolden ValleyRdKelly DrSumter
Ave NCountry
Club Dr Lewis Rd 55 StudyArea
Public Tree Inventory Diameter 4.7
in.4.
7-
1 0.9 in.1
0.9-1 5.
9 in.1 5.
9-25.7 in.
25.7-47.7
in.Flood Hazard
Zones Floodway 1 % Chance
of Flooding 0 1
00 200 300 Feet
DRAFT 08/14/2019Public Tree
Inventory and Flood HazardsGolden Valley
Downtown Study Phase II Legend
º»¼º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼
Winnetka Ave NQuebec
Ave NPennsylvania Ave NWinnetka
Ave NRhode Island Ave
NOrkla Dr Glenw o
o d A v e
ValdersAve N 1 0
t h A v
e N Faribault St
Golden V all e
y D rWisconsin Ave
NRhode Island Ave NGolden
Valley Rd Kelly DrSumter Ave
NCountry Club Dr Lewis
Rd 55 L: $1,907,
000.00 B: $968,000.
00 L: $927,000.
00 B: $942,000.
00 L: $90,000.
00 B: $0.00 L: $
333,000.00 B: $444,
000.00 L: $737,000.
00 B: $1,801,
000.00 L: $7,686,
000.00 B: $5,
470,000.00
L: $420,000.00
B: $0.00 L: $
262,000.00
B: $911,000.
00 L: $903,
000.00 B: $
2,310,000.
00 L: $209,
000.00 B: $
601,000.00
L: $226,000.
00 B: $520,
000.00 L: $
836,000.00
B: $467,000.
00 L: $1,
129,000.00
B: $496,000.
00 L: $4,
790,000.00
B: $5,858,
000.00 L: $
491,000.00
B: $399,000.
00 L: $328,
000.00 B: $
2,452,000.
00 L: $1,
490,000.
00 B: $3,928,000.
00
L: $903,
000.00 B: $
1,612,000.
00 L: $28,
000.00 B: $
0.00 L: $994,
000.00 B: $239,900.00 L:
N/A B: N/A L:
N/A B: N/
A L:
N/AB: N/AL: N/
A B:
N/A L: N/AB: N/A
L: N/
A B: N/A L: N/A
B: N/A L: N/A
B: N/
A
L: N/A B: N/
A L: N/A
B: N/A L:
N/A B: N/
A L: N/A
B: N/A
L: N/A B:
N/A Study Area
0 1 00 200
300 Feet Parcel Values Golden
Valley Downtown Study Phase II
L: Land Value B: Building
Value Based on Hennepin
County Assessor’s
data for taxes payable
2019 DRAFT 08/14/
20 1 9 Land
and Building Values º»¼º»¼¹
º»¼¹º»¼Winnetka Ave
NQuebec Ave NPennsylvania Ave
NWinnetka Ave NRhode Island
Ave NOrkla Dr Glenw
o o d A
v e ValdersAve N
1 0 t h A
v e N Faribault
St Golden V all e
y D rWisconsin Ave NRhode
Island Ave NGolden Valley
Rd Kelly DrSumter Ave
NCountry Club Dr Lewis
Rd 55 L: $1,907,
000.00 B: $968,000.
00 L: $927,000.00
B: $942,000.00
L: $90,000.00 B: $
0.00 L: $333,
000.00 B: $
444,000.00 L: $
737,000.00 B: $
1,801,000.
00 L: $7,
686,000.00
B: $5,470,
000.00 L: $
420,000.00
B: $0.00
L: $262,000.
00 B: $911,
000.00 L: $
903,000.00
B: $2,310,
000.00 L: $
209,000.00
B: $601,000.
00 L: $226,
000.00 B: $
520,000.00
L: $836,000.
00 B: $467,
000.00 L: $
1,129,000.
00 B: $496,
000.00 L: $
4,790,000.
00 B: $5,
858,000.
00 L: $491,000.00
B: $
399,000.
00 L: $328,
000.00 B: $
2,452,000.
00 L: $1,
490,000.00 B: $
3,928,000.00 L: $903,000.
00 B: $1,612,000.00
L: $
28,000.
00B: $0.00 L: $994,000.
00 B: $
239,900.00 L: N/AB: N/
A L:
N/A B: N/A L: N/
A B: N/A L: N/
A B:
N/
A L:
N/A
B:
N/A
L: N/
A B:
N/
A
L: N/
A B:
N/A
L: N/
A
B: N/
A
L: N/
A B:
N/A L:
N/A
B:
N/A
L: N/
A B: N/
A L:
N/A
B: N/
A L:
N/A B: N/
A Study
Area
0
1 00
200 300
Feet Parcel Values
Golden
Valley
Downtown Study
Phase
II L:
Land Value
B: Building
Value Based
on Hennepin County Assessor’s
data
for taxes payable 2019 DRAFT 08/
14/20 1
9 Legend º»¼
º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼
Winnetka Ave NQuebec
Ave NPennsylvania
AveNWinnetkaAveNRhode IslandAveNOrkla
Dr Glenw
o o d A veValdersAve N
1 0
t h A v e NFaribault
St Golden V all e y
D rWisconsin
Ave
NRhode Island
Ave NGolden
Valley
Rd Kelly
DrSumter Ave
NCountry Club
Dr
Lewis
Rd 55
15.3%
21 .4%
0%18.
7%
23.6%
27.
5%0%
38%36.
1%25.1%
27.6%
12.
5%0%
11.6%
0%20.4%
7.9%
1 6.
4%28.
1%13%
36.2%51.3%
1 3.
4%
27.
7%46.
8%28.
2%51.3%
33.
9%
27.7%
48.
4%0%
0%0.
6%Study
Area Building
Lot Coverage 0 25%25 -
50%
50%Building Footprints Impervious Surface Road
System Other Impervious
0 1 00
200 300 Feet
DRAFT
08/14/
20 1
9BuildingLotCoverage
GoldenValleyDowntown
Study Phase
II Building LotCoverage º»¼º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼
Winnetka Ave
NQuebec Ave NPennsylvania Ave NWinnetka AveNRhode
Island Ave NOrkla Dr Glenw o
o d
A
v e
ValdersAve N
1 0
t h
A
v e
N Faribault
St
Golden V
all e
y D
rWisconsin Ave
NRhode Island
Ave NGolden
Valley Rd
Kelly DrSumter
Ave NCountry
Club Dr
Lewis Rd
55 15.
3%21 .
4%0%
18.7%
23.6%
27.5%
0%38%
36.
1%25.1%27.
6%12.
5%0%
11.6%
0%20.
4%7.
9%1
6.
4%28.
1%13%36.
2%51.
3%
1 3.
4%27.
7%46.
8%28.
2%51.3%33.9%
27.
7%48.4%0%0%0.
6%Study
Area
Building Lot Coverage
0 25%25 -
50%50%Building
Footprints Impervious
SurfaceRoadSystemOther Impervious01
00 200
300 Feet DRAFT 08/14/201 9
Building Lot
Coverage Golden Valley Downtown Study PhaseII
Legend Background Information º»¼º»¼¹º»¼¹
º»¼Winnetka
Ave
NQuebec Ave
NPennsylvania Ave
NWinnetka Ave
NRhode Island
Ave
NOrkla Dr
Glenw o
o
d A
v e
ValdersAve N
1 0
t h
A v
e N
Faribault St
Golden V
all e
y D
rWisconsin Ave
NRhode Island
Ave NGolden
Valley Rd
Kelly DrSumter
Ave NCountry
Club Dr
Lewis
Rd 55 69.3%
80.9%
49.4%
73.3%
56%88.
1%67.
6%75%
69.
9%75.
1%75.9%
48.1 %
7.
8%81.
2%57.
9%62.
5%73.
7%73.2%67.4%
54.
2%55.2%93.2%53.
4%37.
7%
68.8%50.
5%69%73.
6%
57.1%
74.1 %53.7%
1.3%0.
6%Study
Area Impervious Lot Coverage 10%1 0-
50%50-
75%75%Building Footprints Impervious SurfaceRoad
System Other Impervious 0 1 00
200 300
Feet
DRAFT 08/14/
20
1 9 Impervious
Lot
Coverage Golden Valley Downtown
Study Phase II Impervious
Lot
Coverage º»¼º»¼¹º»¼¹
º»¼
Winnetka Ave NQuebec
Ave
NPennsylvania Ave NWinnetka Ave
NRhode Island Ave
NOrkla
Dr Glenw o
o
d A v
e
ValdersAve N 1 0
t
h A v
e
N Faribault St
Golden
V all e
y
D rWisconsin Ave
NRhode
Island Ave NGolden
Valley
Rd Kelly DrSumter
Ave
NCountry Club Dr
Lewis
Rd 55 69.3%
80.9%49.
4%
73.3%
56%88.
1%67.
6%75%
69.9%
75.1%
75.9%
48.1 %
7.8%
81.2%57.9%
62.5%
73.7%
73.2%
67.4%54.2%55.
2%93.
2%53.4%
37.7%68.8%50.
5%69%
73.6%57.1%74.
1 %
53.7%1.3%0.6%
Study Area Impervious Lot
Coverage 1 0%
1 0-50%
50-75%75%Building
Footprints Impervious
SurfaceRoadSystemOther Impervious01
00 200
300 Feet DRAFT 08/14/201 9
Impervious Lot
Coverage Golden Valley Downtown Study PhaseII
Legend º»¼º»¼¹º»¼¹º»¼Winnetka
Ave NQuebec
Ave
NPennsylvania Ave NWinnetka
Ave
NRhode Island Ave
NOrkla
Dr Glenw o o
d A v e
ValdersAve
N 1 0 t
h
A v e
N
Faribault St Golden V
all e y
D
rWisconsin Ave NRhode
Island
Ave NGolden Valley
Rd
Kelly DrSumter Ave NCountry
Club
Dr Lewis Rd
55
24.11/Sq.
Ft.
40.32/Sq.
Ft.
4.00/Sq.
Ft.
1 4.03/
Sq.
Ft.1 3.
95/
Sq.Ft.34.
24/
Sq.Ft.4.98/
Sq. Ft.17.
11/
Sq.Ft.
17.78/
Sq.Ft.
15.54/
Sq.Ft.
1 6.
50/Sq.
Ft.21.
82/Sq.
Ft.21 .58/Sq.
Ft.44.
47/Sq.
Ft.36.
28/Sq.Ft.49.79/
Sq.Ft.
72.72/Sq.
Ft.28.32/Sq.Ft.
1.19/
Sq. Ft.19.55/Sq.
Ft.
N/A N/A N/A N/
A N/A N/
A N/A
N/A N/
A
Downtown Study Phase II
City of GoldenValleyActiveTransportation Opportunities
Don’t likeitLikeit
As a part of the Downtown Study Phase II,
the City is exploring potential future trail
routes through the downtown.
Place a green dot next to the routes you
like and a red dot next to routes you don’t
like.
Potential
Trail
Routes
A1
A2
B
C1
C2
D1
D2
Downtown Study Phase II
City of Golden Valley
WalkingBikingGeneral
Who Participated?
What are the top reasons you visit downtown?
Stores
RestaurantsLife
City Hall
Coffee
Post Office
Library
Entertainment
Business
Brookview
Work
FarmersMarketDining
Hardware
ArtFestivalPokemon
Dentist
Liquor Store
Doolittles
Retail/Shopping CoffeeFestival
Hearing Center
Socialize
How did you get here today?
47%33%
20%
Why did you choose to travel that way today?
Available Parking
Carrying
items
Multiple
Stops
Convenience
Cost
Distance
Traveled
EnvironmentalReasonsMobilityIssues
OnlyChoiceSafety/Security
Concerns
Pleasure or
Exercise
Traveling with
Kids/Others
How often do you walk to destinations in the downtown -
like stores, city hall, or the library?
Rarely/never
38%
A few times/
year
15%
A few times/
month
23%
A few times/
week
15%Every
day
9%
What factors would encourage you to walk to/around
downtown more often? (Mark all that apply)
More
convenient,
useful, or fun
destinations
15%
Events and
activities that
encourage
walking
14%
Routes that
are more
comfortable
and enjoyable
17%
Feeling safe or
welcome on
the street or
trail
11%
More
sidewalks
and safer,
better marked
crossings
12%
Sidewalks/
Intersections
cleared in winter
10%
Places to stop,
rest, and cool
off
8%
Other
5%
Trees/
shade along
walking
routes
7%
Signs and
maps that
help me
navigate
1%
Are there amenities that might make walking or biking in downtown more attractive? If so, what are they?
Protected Bike Lanes
Better Shopping
Better Eats
Grocery/PharmacySecureBikeParking
Wider Sidewalks
Parking
Bike Paths
Short Bike Races
Better Connections
ParksConvenience
Store
Parks
Less Cars
Water RefillStationsSaferCrossing
Kid Fun!
Bathrooms
Signs
Scenic Routes
Bike Shop
Healthy Food Options
More Trails
How often do you bike to destinations in the downtown
Like stores, city hall, or the library?
A few times/
week
11%
A few times/
year
20%
A few times/
month
26%
Every
day
5%
Rarely/never
38%
What factors would encourage you to bike to/around
downtown more often? (Mark all that apply)
More
convenient,
useful, or fun
destinations
Events and
activities that
encourage
biking
Routes that
are more
comfortable
and
enjoyable
Feeling safe
or welcome
on the
street or
trail
Bike repair
stations or
air pumps
More/better
marked
trails and
bike lanes
Classes or
group rides
for new
cyclists
Convenient
bike
parking
Trails/
Intersections
cleared in
winter
Signs and
maps that
help me
navigate
Places to
stop, rest,
and cool off
13%
Other
11%12%10%12%10%
7%7%5%5%6%2%
What is your gender?
58%42%
Which applies to you?
69%
I live in
Golden
Valley
13%I work in
Golden
Valley
18%
I’m visiting
Golden
Valley
Which of the following
describes you?
American
IndianBlack/
African
AmericanNative
Hawaiian/
Pacific
IslanderAsianLatino/HispanicWhite/Caucasian0 40 60 80
100
20
What
is
your
home
zip
code?
55422
55426
55416
55408
5544255421
55405
55427 55337 55104 55303
55441 55369 55447
55106 What is
your age?Under
18: 1%18-
30: 10%30-
45:
18%
45-
60:
30%
Over60:
41%
18%18%
13%
13%
8%7%7%6%6%2%1%1%Summary of
Downtown Study Phase II
City of GoldenValleyRedevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities
DRAFT 08/14/2 0 1 9
Redevelopment
Scenarios
Golden Valley Downtown
Study Phase II
DRAFT 08/14/2 0 1 9
Redevelopment
Scenarios
Golden Valley Downtown
Study Phase II
As a part of the Downtown Study Phase
II, the City is exploring where future
opportunities may be for downtown
redevelopment and reinvestment.
Within each of the downtown quadrants,
we are also exploring potential phasing
of redevelopment/reinvestment, e.g. “A” is
anticipated to be the first area to change.
Do you have any comments or concerns on
these potential change areas?
Comments/Concerns
Downtown Study Phase II
City of Golden Valley
Grocery store example
Mixed use and pedestrian crossing example
Mixed use and parking garage example
Precedents
Concept A
Concept B
What do you like about these
concepts?
What do you think should be changed about
these concepts?
What do you think the long-term vision should be for this
area of downtown?
Commercial with outdoor dining example
SW Quadrant Concepts
Off-Street
Trail
Off-Street
Trail
Surface Parking
Underground
Stormwater)
Grocery
Store
16,000 SF
New Access
Residential
50-60 Units
Expanded ROW
Golden Valley Dr.
Public ROW Remains New Mall
Entrance
Residential
50-60 Units
5,000 SF
Existing Building
Reconfigured
Comm
4,000 SF
Comm
7,000 SF
Existing
Commercial
Road
Existing Building
Reconfigured
Off-Street
Trail
Surface Parking
Underground
Stormwater)
Grocery
Store
28,500 SF +/-
New Access
Off-Street
Trail
ParkingStructureCourtyardAbove)
Ex Comm.
ParkingStructureCourtyardAbove)
Commercial
17,500 SF +/-
Optional
Housing
Above
Expanded ROW
GroundLevelRetail
15,000SF
Off-Street
Trail
Residential90-100Untis Residential
80-90 Units
Golden Valley Dr.
Public ROW Vacated
Residential
50-60 Units
Residential
50-60 Units
GroundLevelRetail
15,000SF
Road
Winnetka Ave NWisconsin
AveNGolden Valley Rd
Go lden Valley
Rd Winnetka Ave
Downtown Study Phase II
City of Golden Valley
Concept A Concept C
Concept B
NE Quadrant Concepts
What do you like about these
concepts?
What do you think should be changed about these concepts?What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown?
Residential example
Fire station example
Precedents
Bike and walk pathway example
Bike and walk pathway example
Surface
Parking
Residential
50-60 Units
Residential
50-60 Units
Surface
Parking
Residential
140-150 Units
Residential
140-150 Units
Structured
Parking
Mixed
Use
12,000 SF
Commercial8,000 SF
Commercial
5,000 SF
Commercial
5,000 SF
Commercial
Surface
Parking
New Street
New Stre et
Water
Tower
Plaza
Surface
Parking
Library
and City
Hall)
New Street
Library and
City Hall
30,000 SF
Library
City Hall
Police Fire
Surface
Parking
New Street
Surface
Parking
Residential
140-150 Units
Residential
140-150 Units
Structured
Parking
Mixed
Use
12,000 SF
Commercial
New Street
New Stre et
8,000 SF
Commercial
5,000 SF
Commercial
5,000 SF
Commercial
Surface
Parking
WaterTowerPlaza
5,000 SF
Commercial
6,000 SF
Commercial
Bike/
Walk
PathwaySurface Parking
Library
and
Commercial)
Creek
Overlook
Surface
Parking Residential 140-
150
Units Residential 40-
50 Units
Bike/Walk
PathwayBike/Walk
PathwayPolice and
Fire
Station New
Bridge
and TrailConnection
Under Winnetka Ave.
Existing City HallWinnetka
Ave NRhode Island
Ave NGolden Valley
Rd 10th Ave
N Winnetka Ave
Downtown Study Phase II
City of GoldenValleyNWQuadrant Concepts
Concept A
What do you like about these
concepts?
Residential example
Residential courtyard example
Creek trail bridge example
Multi-story office example
Precedents
Concept B
What do you think should be changed about
these concepts?
What do you think the long-term vision should be for this
area of downtown?
40,000 SF
Office24,000 SF
OfficeSurfaceParking
Surface
Parking
Existing
Office
Residential
70-80 Units
Residential
100-110UnitsPrivateYardArea
Private
Yard Area
Private
Yard Area
10,000
SF Office
8,000
SF
Office
Trail
Tunnel
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Trail
TrailTrail
ConnectionTrail/
Walk
ConnectionStormwater
Stormwater Stormwater Office
12,
000 SF Residential
80-
90 UnitsResidential60-70UnitsTr
a
i
l
TrailSurface
Parking
Surface
Parking
Surface
Parking Surface
Parking 10,
000 SF
Office
Off-Street
Trail
Off-Street Trail
Trail Connection to
Luce Line Trail
Trail Connection to
Luce Line
Trail
Off-Street
Trail New
Street Winnetka Ave
NWisconsin Ave
NLewis Rd 10th
Downtown Study Phase II
City of Golden Valley
High density housing example Mixed use with housing example
Commercial with outdoor dining example Civic example
Police station and firehouse example Creekside Tunnel Trail
Community festivals and gatherings example Library example
Precedent Images
APPENDIX B
Open House Summary
Page 46
Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II
Open House 10-21-2019
Comments Received
1
Highlights of Comments Received
Comments were received from open house attendees via sticky notes placed on information boards as
well as comment cards. From these comments, we have identified the following key concerns and
preferences expressed at the open house:
SW quadrant - support for street improvements (safer, more walkable), support for attracting
additional commercial businesses (grocery, pharmacy), support for redevelopment, concerns
about Wisconsin Ave/Hwy 55 intersection traffic movements.
NE quadrant – support for improving walking environment/network, concerns about new
streets/preference for pedestrian only streets, concerns about potential changes to the library,
support for adding public outdoor spaces, support for adding residential in downtown.
NW quadrant - no major concerns were identified for the proposed concepts and support was
expressed for residential and office development in this area.
Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities – some concerns about relocating existing uses
in the NE quadrant, such as civic, post office, library, McDonald’s.
Active Transportation Opportunities – concern about safety of pedestrian/bike crossings of
Hwy 55 and Winnetka Ave.
SW Quadrant Comments
What do you like about these concepts?
Grocery Store Concept! Drug Store.
Grocery Store, Drug Store, Get rid of strip mall.
GV got rid of 2 grocery stores years ago. Not enough room for a regular size one and parking – it
would need to be very small.
Eliminate the ugly shopping center!
Grocery Store. Prefer Concept A. Like parking safe and clear sight lines.
Do not agree with tearing down the shopping center and forcing existing businesses out.
What do you think should be changed about these concepts?
Where is our main street? Where will anyone walk?
Simple near-term fix, down cast lights, aesthetics, screening.
Avoid U-turns at Golden Valley Road and Winnetka.
Access corridor at Wesley Commons Drive.
Should be the first thing to go! Grocery store in its place.
No more high rises or multi/apartments. The plan is too extensive.
What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown?
Include food retail. Services for bus transit.
Use the old Park Nicollet for grocery store.
Downtown is for people 1st, Cars 2nd.
Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II
Open House 10-21-2019
Comments Received
2
Need the Wells Fargo Bank. Concerned about losing drive-thrus.
Concept A Comments
Highway 55 and Wisconsin Ave intersection – consider priority movement and sight lines.
Concept B Comments
Wisconsin Ave - 30 mph speed limit, private drive access.
New residential, grocery, recessed parking.
NE Quadrant Comments
What do you like about these concepts?
More residential more commercial is good. Downtown should be busy and crowded.
More residential and hidden parking. New ped/bike paths without street.
Like the idea of a trail connection to Luce Line and 10th, but not the location. Cars currently whip
around the corner, and we never like crossing there currently with our kids on bikes.
What do you think should be changed about these concepts?
Make “new street” in Concept C pedestrian only.
Don’t rebuild library.
Don’t move library like in Concept A.
Didn’t we remodel the library a few years ago?
Library visitors have to cross a street between the parking lot and building? Or is it a pedestrian
only “street”?
Calvary Co-Op residents would like a mid-block crosswalk.
Like Concept A. Like residential by library and City Hall. Don’t move library or City Hall or police.
I would like walking trail connection from City Hall to library.
What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown?
N-S bike/walk corridor is good idea.
Nice to have park/lounge areas on the creek. Currently very little creek access.
Consider gravel pit on SW quad of Winnetka and 55 for city public works buildings.
Separate bike+ped=good. Together=danger.
Keep Community Festival and gathering space as central as possible – as close to 55 and
Winnetka intersection.
With the proposal for all commercial and multi-housing, where is the traffic study?
In the designs, remember the elderly.
Keep the library where it is.
More dining options with outdoor space.
Don’t we have enough rental buildings?!?
City Hall/Library combined building. Great idea!
Mixed/shared parking w/ Calvary Church.
Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II
Open House 10-21-2019
Comments Received
3
NW Quadrant Comments
What do you like about these concepts?
Trail connection to Luce Line is basically already a trail anyway. I use it. Just make it a maintained
trail.
Concept B is better – private yard areas providing sense of community – yet safety that
residents can see it. Nice to have residential by creek.
Trash/recycling bins on Luce Line trail – please.
More residential and small offices.
What do you think should be changed about these concepts?
I would prefer 3-4 story office building with more green space and smaller footprint.
What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown?
No comments.
Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities Comments
Keep City Hall and Post Office and Police where they are – and library and Motor Vehicle
Licensing in downtown.
The City’s trucks could be moved elsewhere – but the other City buildings bring residents to
downtown.
Grocery Store is great!
Make 3A parking lot (adjacent to Luce Line Trail) into park.
Build creek park access/benches. Currently there is no creek access.
Why move a successful business – tax base – E.? (McDonald’s)
Library should stay in existing quadrant.
Active Transportation Opportunities Comments
Improve the Hwy 55 crossing for bikes and walkers.
Put a tunnel under 55 instead of on Winnetka.
Reduce traffic speed thru out city – 55 on 55 too fast.
Request for better pedestrian crossing of Luce Line along Winnetka. Also request better ped
crossing on Winnetka and Golden Valley road.
General Comments
Crossing 55 from south to goods and services. (Clover leaf addition). Schaper Park.
Affordable housing needs to be in the mix, as we did with Common Bond. Put this front and
center as the residential pieces are considered.
I was so proud of the citizen group that advocated for what is now GV commons (SE quadrant) –
aesthetically pleasing, nice place to invite people to, nice indoor and outdoor spaces to gather,
curved (slowed) parking lots. I wish we could get a broad concept of what we want the whole to
look like, how the 4 quadrants all relate and create a “downtown” that is cohesive and to be
Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II
Open House 10-21-2019
Comments Received
4
proud of. Phase II, per the first poster, is to “establish overall vision and guiding principles” – but
I don’t see those anywhere, so then it’s hard for me to respond to the 4 quadrant “pieces”.
What are we trying to do? What do we want it to be? The more these principles and vision can
be explicit and used to guide the consideration of options, the better.
I so wish the SW quadrant would be redesigned to look nice and be something I’m proud of.
I love Excelsior and Grand and the vision-to-reality of that place. My mom moved there at age
80 and everything was within walking distance or close driving distance. Can we accomplish
something like that here? Requires a grocery store with pharmacy I think.
Consider residents like us – age 60, homeowners, eventually will want to downsize, love GV,
would consider moving into this downtown area if done right.
Are there condos and townhouses in the mix of residential? I have friends who want to move
out of their single family homes in their 60s and say the supply of townhouse options is very low
vs the demand.
I think a priority, before higher density, is the re-development of the strip mall with Ace. It is an
eye-sore and very empty. I heard the owner was given it by his father, how can the city inspire
him to sell? Name the area after his father? There is so much opportunity, but no one will move
in to that place in that condition. I am also worried about New Bohemia. New Bohemia is not
doing well and have closed many restaurants already. If they leave, there will be little reason to
go.
I live in the NW quadrant of GV Road and Winnetka. I moved here to be able to walk to the
library, City Hall, my bank, trails, shops and restaurants. To do so is life threatening? This area
was built for automobiles and truck traffic, not for pedestrians. To build more commercial
without making it safe for pedestrians is crazy. Likewise for extending trails and bike lanes. Close
an area that is free of traffic. Make cars park outside the area to walk in. I am opposed to more
development without changing traffic patterns first.
Healthy and safe. Built in to the lifestyle. Businesses both large and small with incentives to
reinvest in GV. Mixed use areas, gathering places. Accessibility. Library and Historical Society
collaboration would be great! Share physical space.
Leave old shopping center area alone! It gives “flavor” to GV. I’m in Wesley Commons. We’ll
never see the sun with higher development. Enough traffic in the area already without 200 more
units. Our street is private! We pay for it and upkeep. No trail running on it please!
APPENDIX C
Social Media Reach And Engagement
Page 51
SOCIAL MEDIA REACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Downtown Study Phase II
Reach = Number of people who saw the post
Engagement = Number of people who interacted with the post
Oct 1, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 998 125 4 2 0
Twitter 254 7 2 0 0
Oct 20, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 782 87 0 1 0
Twitter 296 15 2 0 0
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Adam Svec @nbbauch
Nov 4, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 778 73 3 1 0
Twitter 238 14 0 0 0
Nov 14, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 1054 160 1 0 4
Twitter 283 21 0 0 0
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Justin Zollar This survey is terrible. Lacking all of the important information (like cost, impact to local
travel, tax assessments or levies, etc.), and even descriptions of what we are looking at.
Karla Rose Also does not work on mobile. When I look at maps then try to get back to questions it
boots me out and I have to start over. Did that 4 time and I gave up.
IIona IIvonen Seriously this is very difficult to figure out. I had to give up
City of Golden
Valley – Local
Government
Thank you all for the feedback. We’re learning as we go with these new community engagement
efforts, and based on your comments, we’re making the following changes:
Future social media posts will link to the Downtown Phase II Study web page and explain that it’s
helpful to read the overview and watch the short videos before taking the survey.
We will restructure the survey to make it easier to understand, including better explanations for
each map and better explanations about the visionary nature of this exercise.
We now realize embedding a survey into a webpage, as in the link above, may not be the easiest
to complete on all formats (mobile, desktop, etc). The next post will include a link directly to the
new survey that should work better.
We expect to have all updates made by end of day Mon, Nov 18. If you have further questions or
comments on the Downtown Study, contact that City Planning Department at 763-593-8095
Nov 19, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 776 59 1 1 0
Twitter 284 21 0 1 0
Nov 30, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 855 36 4 1 0
Twitter 170 16 1 0 0
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
December 10, 2019
Agenda Item
2. Highway 55 BRT Discussion
Prepared By
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Summary
Highway 55 has been identified several times in recent years as a potential Bus Rapid Transit corridor.
In 2014 the Metropolitan Council completed a Highway Transit Corridor Study of various routes
throughout the metro area. At the request of the cities of Plymouth and Medina, an addendum to the
study was completed in 2015 focusing on Highway 55 to determine the demand for Highway BRT
service on the corridor. In 2018, MNDoT, the Metropolitan Council and Scott County completed the
Highway 169 Mobility Study, which considered transportation improvements to the corridor from
Shakopee to Minneapolis, including BRT service. Highway 55 was selected as the preferred route to
connect Highway 169 and Minneapolis. The Golden Valley City Council supported this conclusion in a
resolution prior to the study’s completion. BRT service on Highway 55 is included in the Metropolitan
Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, which is necessary for the corridor to receive federal and
regional funding for transit improvement. BRT service on Highway 55 is also identified in Golden
Valley’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and included in the City’s legislative priorities.
Recently, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council, and the cities along Highway 55 met to discuss
how the development of BRT on Highway 55 could advance. It was concluded that demonstrating local
commitment to BRT was critical and could be done through council resolutions, land use planning, and
infrastructure improvements that support a BRT system. A subsequent meeting concluded that
additional analysis of the corridor funded by the cities to develop a proof of concept, would further
demonstrate local commitment to BRT on Highway 55. Such an analysis could provide the basis for
regional funding to run a pilot bus route and demonstrate ridership demand. If an analysis is to be
done, a contract with an consultant will need to be awarded in February to both complete the analysis
and complete an application for regional funding in June of 2020.
Staff wishes to discuss with Council its interest in passing a resolution at its December 17th meeting
supporting BRT service on Highway 55, as well as its interest in participating financially in further
analysis of the BRT on the corridor.
Council/Manager Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
December 10, 2019
2
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Financial impacts to complete additional analysis of the corridor are unknown but a reasonable
estimate of Golden Valley’s share of such work is $25,000 to $50,000.
Supporting Documents
Draft Resolution (1 page)
Resolution 19-XX December 17, 2019
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FUTURE BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) SERVICE ON
HIGHWAY 55 AND PARTICIPATION IN ADDITIONAL STUDY OF THE CORRIDOR
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council commissioned a study of Highway Transit
Corridors in 2014 and included the Highway 55 corridor in an addendum to that study 2015
identifying the segment of Medina to Minneapolis through Golden Valley as a possible BRT
route; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the
Metropolitan Council, and Scott County funded and participated in the US Highway 169
Mobility Study, which also considered BRT service on Highway 55; and
WHEREAS, the Golden Valley City Council adopted Resolution 17-__ supporting
US Highway 169 Mobility Study, including the location of BRT service on Highway 55; and
WHEREAS, BRT service on Highway 55 is identified in the Metropolitan Council’s
2040 Transportation Policy Plan, Golden Valley’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and Golden
Valley’s Legislative Priorities; and
WHEREAS, BRT Service on Highway 55 is forecast to service 8300 riders per day
by 2030;…..
WHEREAS, modifications to the corridor would be required to increase ridership,
decrease trip time and lower capital and operating costs; and
WHEREAS, leadership from the corridor cities, Hennepin County, and Metropolitan
Council met in October and November of 2019 to discuss how to advance the development
of BRT Service on Highway 55 and concluded that support and investment by the corridor
communities was necessary to advance BRT service on Highway 55;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Plymouth adopted a resolution in May
2019 supporting efforts to complete a Highway 55 Mobility Study in conjunction with
Hennepin County, the State of Minnesota., and the Metropolitan Council; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, the City of Golden Valley continues to
support the implementation of BRT service on Highway 55 and is a willing partner to further
study the corridor to identify improvements and prove ridership demand.
Passed by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 17th day of December, 2019
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
December 10, 2019
Agenda Item
3. Employee Handbook Updates Discussion
Prepared By
Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director
Summary
The City regularly reviews policies to ensure compliance with state and federal laws and best practices.
The City proposes several changes to the current Employee Handbook. If approved, these revisions will
be effective January 1, 2020.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Not applicable
Supporting Documents
Summary of 2020 Handbook Changes (1 page)
Summary of 2020 Handbook
Changes
Future Employee Policy Considerations
The outcome of the compensation study may impact the current compensation policy.
Change Section/Policy Changes
1 Section 3.0
Employment of
Relatives Policy
Employment of Relatives policy updated for clarity of the term “applicant,” to
include internal promotions.
Also removed provision that relatives of current appointed
board/commission/task force members are ineligible for employment.
2 Section 4.0
Tobacco, Drug and
Alcohol Policy
Changed the policy to reflect new federal regulations – the Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse (required for our CDL drivers).
3 Section 7.0
Time Tracking
Procedures
Updated the “Timesheets” section of this policy to reflect the City’s transition
from paper timesheets to electronic timekeeping.
4 Section 7.0
Standby Policy
Updated policy for clarity – no substantive changes.
5 Section 9.0
Suspension Policy
Added “with or without pay” to suspension policy. An oversight from the 2018
policy update, which allows the City Manager to suspend an employee for
disciplinary reasons.
6 Section 10.0
Tuition
Reimbursement
To help increase the qualified pool of candidates for a police officer position, in
which individuals are required to hold a degree, the City updated the tuition
reimbursement policy to allow CSO’s the ability to receive tuition
reimbursement after six months of service. The current policy states that
employees on probation, which is one-year, are ineligible.
Updated the policy to clarify that courses receiving pass/fail are eligible for
reimbursement, but all courses must be in pursuit of a degree. To be
consistent with the Police contracts, changed the requirement of
reimbursement of graded courses from a “B” or better to a “C” or better.
With the understanding that many degrees require general courses that may
not directly relate to the employee’s job, the City removed the following
language: “non-related coursework will be reimbursed at a rate of 50% with a
cap of $500.”
7 Section 11.0
Expenses Policy/
Employee Travel
Policy
Created new section of the handbook called “Employee Travel,” which is
currently under Section 11.0 – Expenses. The employee travel section
describes in greater detail the circumstances under which employees may
travel for business purposes and the reasonable use of expenses for travel.
Subsequently, the Expenses Policy is now Section 12.0.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to Order
A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages
B. Roll Call
C. Presentation of Bill Hobbs Human Rights Award
2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda
3. Consent Agenda
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine
by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these
items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the
general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes:
1. City Council Meeting – November 19 and December 3, 2019
B. Approval of City Check Register
C. Licenses:
1. Approve Cigarette/Tobacco License Renewals
2. Approve Therapeutic Massage Facility License Renewals
3. Approve Consumption and Display Permit – Mort’s Delicatessen
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Human Services Commission – October 24, 2019
2. Environmental Commission – October 28, 2019
3. Human Rights Commission – October 22, 2019
E. Bids and Quotes:
1. Approve Professional Services Agreement with McGrath Consulting Group
2. Approve Purchase of Police & Public Works Vehicles
F. Approval of Grants and Donations:
1. Approve the Healthy Tree Canopy Grant Agreement with Hennepin County
2. Acceptance of Ongoing Donations 19-
3. Contract with MHFA for Building Capacity Grant
4. Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Grant Agreement
G. Adopt Amendments to the Employee Handbook 19-
H. Authorization to Sign Engagement Letter for Auditing Services for 2019 Fiscal Year
I. Approve Resolution supporting the Highway 55 BRT
J. Authorize Partners in Energy Application with Xcel Energy
4. Public Hearing
December 17, 2019 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road DRAFT
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting
December 17, 2019 – 6:30 pm
2
5. Old Business
6. New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals decision for 1601 Noble Drive
B. Second Consideration – Ordinance #676 – Amendment to the 2020 Fee Schedule for
Street Assessment Fees
C. 2019 Budget Carry Forward
D. Resolution relating to the Subdivision of Land
E. Review of Council Calendar
F. Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7. Adjournment
DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1.Call to Order
A.Pledge of Allegiance Pages
B.Oath of Office by City Manager Cruikshank
Shepard Harris, Mayor Term Expires - 12/31/23
Maurice Harris, Council Member Term Expires - 12/31/23
Kimberly Sanberg, Council Member Term Expires - 12/31/23
C.Roll Call & Seating of the Council
2.Additions and Corrections to Agenda
3.Consent Agenda
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine
by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these
items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the
general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
A.Approval of Minutes:
1.City Council Meeting – December 17, 2019
B.Designation of 2020 Official Newspaper
C.Approval of City Check Register
D.Designation of Depository for City Funds 20-
E.Licenses:
1.
F.Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1.
G.Bids and Quotes:
1.
H.Approval of Grants and Donations:
1.
I.Approval of Use of Credit Cards for Purchases
J.Annual Elections of the 2020-2021 Insurance Policy 20-
K.Receive and File Bottineau Vision Plan
L.Approve Agreement with Hennepin County for the 2020/2021 Sentencing to Service
Program
4.Public Hearing
A.Public Hearing - CUP Amendment – Home Health Care Inc – 800 Boone Ave N
5.Old Business
January 7, 2020 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road DRAFT
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting
January 7, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
6. New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. Review of Council Calendar
B. Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7. Adjournment
DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Pages
1.2020 Council Assignments
2.Fats, Oils and Grease Installation Policy
3.Facilities Study Discussion
4.2020 Legislative Priorities
5.Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: Housing & Redevelopment Authority January
21, City Council January 21, City Council February 4, and Council/Manager February 11,
2020
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the
Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general
directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend
Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by
invitation of the City Council.
January 14, 2020 – 6:30 pm
Council Conference Room
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road DRAFT